The Path Which Led a 
Protestant Lawyer to 
the Catholic Church 



BY 

PETER H. BURNETT 

^1 



EDITED AND ABRIDGED BY 

REV. JAMES SULLIVAN, SJ. 

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY 



" Thou hast made us, O Lord, for Thyself, and our hearts are 
restless until they repose in Thee," — Saint Augustine, 



ST. LOUIS, MO., 1909 
Published by B. Herder 
17 South Broadway 

freiburg (baden) i london and edinburgh 
B. HERDER | SANDS & CO. 



Tv;o CoDies Receded 

FEB 6 1909 

Gopyiife-nt Entry 
CLASS CX, XXc. No. 



NIHIL OBSTAT. 

F. G. HOLWECK, 

Censor Librorujn. 

S. Ludovici, die 26. Sept. 1908. 



IMPRIMATUR. 

►J* Joannes J. Glennon, 

Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici. 

S Ludovici, die 27. Sept. 1908. 



Copyright, 1909, by JO?ftph Gummersbach. 



- BECKTOLD- 

PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO. 
ST. LOLfIS, MO. 



r 



CONTENTS 

PAGE. 



Editor's Preface vii 

Introduction , xv 

CHAPTER I. 

THE LAW OF CHRIST. 

The law of Christ must form a rule of moral conduct and a 

standard of faith i 

Of the different modes of publication, and of the advantages 

of a mixed code 3 

Of Tradition as a medium of transmission 6 

Of the inspiration and authenticity of the written law of Christ 9 
Of the logical course of examination to ascertain the inspira- 
tion of the authors of the New Testament 11 

Of the unwritten law of Christ 16 

The same matter further considered 18 

Of the Scriptural view of the written and the unwritten law 22 

The true theory 26 

The testimony of the Ancient Fathers 28 

Of the rules to be observed in consulting the Fathers 30 

Concluding remarks of this chapter 31 

CHAPTER H. 

OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 

The organization of the visible Church must follow from the 

character of Christ as a lawgiver 34 

There is much more Infidelity in the world than most teach- 
ers of Christianity believe 36 

Of the Scriptural proofs that Christ did organize such' an 

institution, and contemplate such unity 37 

Extracts from Protestant writers 40 

Extracts from a Catholic writer 41 

i 



" . CONTENTS 
CHAPTER III. 

THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH, 

That a visible association of men cannot continue to exist 

without government 44 

Christ must have placed the governing power somewhere in 

the Church 45 

The true office of reason 49 

Testimony of Christ as to the governing power of the Church 52 

Testimony of St. Paul , 54 

The powers of government bestowed upon the Apostolical 

Church, continuing 57 

The persons appointed by the apostles exercised the powers 

conferred by the commission 64 

Certain positions of Mr. Breckenridge examined 66 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 

All laws intended for the government of men should provide 

some tribunal to determine what the law is 70 

Such tribunal must possess infallibility, either actual or judi- 
cial, according to the nature of the system 74 

Actual infallibility must be found in the Christian association 76 
The judicial power of the Church must extend to every viola- 
tion of the law 77 

The necessity of such a tribunal shown from the true char- 
acter of Scripture. 79 

Causes of obscurity of the Scriptures 82 

That the right of revolution cannot exist in the members of 

the Church 86 

The duty of the judicial power 89 

Objections considered. 98 

A passage from St. Peter examined 107 

Is not this theory intolerant? 109 

CHAPTER V. 

THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER. 

The executive power must exist in the visible Church 114 

The Scriptural proofs of the primacy of St. Peter examined 116 
The Scriptural proofs further considered 123 



CONTENTS iii 
CHAPTER VL 

HAS GOD, BY MIRACLES, ATTESTED THE FAITH AND SANCTITY OF THE 

CATHOLIC CHURCH ? „ , 

PAGE. 

Preparatory remarks 129 

The theory of the Infidel 130 

The true theory 136 

CHAPTER Vn. 

CAN THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES, SINGLY OR COMBINED, BE THE TRUE 

CHURCH ? 

Have the promises of Christ failed? 146 

Has the Catholic Church been uniform in her faith? 151 

The same subject further considered 161 

CHAPTER VHI. 

AN OBJECTION ANSWERED. 

Is the Catholic rule impracticable? 167 

The same matter further considered 174 

The vicious circle 183 

Can the Church decide her own cases? 188 

The Church incapable of reformation 191 

Wicked persons are sometimes found in the Catholic Church 196 

That successors of the apostles must be successors in full... 200 

CHAPTER IX. 

CHARGES AGAINST THE JESUITS AND CERTAIN POPES. 

Charges against the Jesuits 202 

These charges examined 209 

Charges against certain Popes 223 

Could these disorders destroy the office of Pope? 238 

CHAPTER X. 

WHAT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM, IN THOSE 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE FAITHFULLY REDUCED ITS 
TEACHINGS TO PRACTICE? 

Character of the Reformers 242 

The Catholic clergy make much greater sacrifices than the 

Protestant 246 



iv CONTENTS 

PAGE. 

Reflections 255 

Mr. Campbell's theory of Protestant union 257 

CHAPTER XL 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

The Holy Eucharist — There were two main points in the 

discourse of our Lord 275 

The same matter further considered 283 

How did the hearers of our Lord understand Him? 288 

Did they understand Him correctly? 290 

Exceptions to the rules deduced from our Lord's conduct. . . . 293 
Did our Lord confirm the construction put upon His words 

by the Jews? 300 

Did His disciples understand Him in the literal sense? 302 

How did the apostles understand our Lord?. 308 

The words of institution 310 

The first class of alleged exceptions considered 312 

The second class of alleged exceptions considered 314 

The words of St. Paul 318 

That it is a contradiction of our senses, and impossible 322 

Reflections 327 

CHAPTER Xn. 

PENANCE, PURGATORY, AND INDULGENCES. 

The general nature of the Sacrament of Penance 334 

Did Christ confer upon the apostles the powers to remit and 

retain sins? 337 

Did these powers descend to the successors of the apostles?. . 341 

Satisfaction 347 

Purgatory 350 

Indulgences , 358 

CHAPTER XHL 

OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS : THEIR RELICS AND IMAGES. 

The Invocation of Saints 362 

The Blessed Virgin Mary 370 

Relics and Images 377 



CONTENTS V 
CHAPTER XIV. 

MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 

PAGE 

General misrepresentations of the Catholic doctrines 381 

Causes of this system of misrepresentation 386 

Reflections 393 

How did these alleged errors get into the Church, and when? 398 

The unity and sufferings of the Old Church 414 

Conclusion 420 



EDITOR'S PREFACE. 



Judge Burnett's " Path Which Led a Protestant Law- 
yer to The Catholic Church," was published fifty years 
ago. 

If an excuse for its reappearance now were needed, it 
will be found in the following extracts from Dr. Brown- 
son's review of the work in i860; — 

" The Appletons have, since the beginning of the year, 
published the anxiously looked for work of Governor 
Burnett, of California, giving his full reasons for be- 
coming a Catholic. It is the work not of a priest, nor 
of a professional theologian, but of a clear-headed, 
strong-minded lawyer, who has not suffered the law to 
make him forget he has a soul, or to stifle his con- 
science. It is written in a clear, forcible and unpre- 
tending style, in a straightforward earnest manner, and 
is to be judged not as mere literary performance, but as 
the grave utterance of a man who really has something 
to say, and is pressed by an internal necessity to say it. 

What strikes the reader at a glance in this remarkable 
volume, is its perfect honesty and sincerity. As you 
read it you feel that the eminent jurist is honestly re- 
tracing the path and detailing the successive steps, by 
which he actually came into the Church; and it has a 
very high psychological value aside from its positive and 
conclusive arguments for the objective truth of Catholicity 
or the divine foundation and constitution of the Catholic 
Church. The whole tone and character of the work in- 
spire confidence in the author, as a fair-minded man, 

vii 



viii 



EDITOR'S PREFACE 



as a candid judge, and as one who would be as in- 
capable of knowingly deceiving others as of deceiving 
himself. He has evidently inquired earnestly and hon- 
estly for the truth for his own mind, and he gives the re- 
sults of his inquiries for precisely for what he found 
them worth to himself. It is always of great interest to 
see what has convinced a conscientious mind, intent on 
saving its own soul, endowed with more than ordinary 
ability, highly cultivated, strengthened by varied expe- 
rience, and accustomed to sift and weigh evidence as a 
lawyer in the most difficult and intricate cases. 

The argument of the book is presented under the legal 
form, by the judge who sums up the case and gives his 
decision, rather than as presented by the advocate. It is 
an argument addressed to reason and good sense, not 
to passion and sensibiHty; and we cannot conceive it 
possible for any fair-minded man to read it and not be 
convinced, although we can conceive that many a man 
may read it and not acknowledge himself convinced. 
The difficulty is that the mass of non-Catholics, unless 
already touched by the grace of God, have a mortal re- 
pugnance to finding the Catholic Church proved; and 
the more legitimate and conclusive the argument ad- 
dressed to them, the less legitimate and conclusive will 
they find it. They are not accustomed to find or to ex- 
pect certainty in matters of religion, and they feel it a 
sort of insult to their understandings when you present 
them a religion which demands and seems to have cer- 
tainty. The author has a truly legal mind, and he brings 
every question to the law and testimony, and insists on a 
verdict accordingly, whereas the mass of our non-Cath- 
olics recognize no law or testimony in the case, and sup- 
pose all depends on one's own fancy or caprice. 

The author assumes what is true, that religion if re^ 



EDITOR'S PREFACE 



ix 



ligion, is the lex suprema for the reason and will ; and 
the question in his mind was never whether religion is 
to be obeyed or not, but whether there be a revealed re- 
ligion and if there be what and where it is. What and 
where is the court to apply it. His book is the answer. 

If we could convert the age to reason, we could 
easily convert it to Catholicity. All the great principles 
on which faith rests are principles of reason, principles 
of natural religion, included in the law of nature. In 
believing Catholicity, the man who really believes what 
is called natural religion, the truths of reason, that is 
the truths reason is competent to prove with certainty, 
has no principles to change, no principles to reject or to 
adopt. What he has to accept in addition to what he 
already holds is not in the order of principles, but in 
the order of facts, provable in like manner as any other 
facts. The incarnation is a fact, redemption through the 
cross is a fact and the church is a fact, judgment is a 
fact. The supernatural order is a fact, but a fact which 
supposes the natural, and which is created in accordance 
with the principles of natural reason, only lying in a 
sphere above reason. 

Into this question Judge Burnett has not entered. 
He takes for granted the authority of reason, supposes 
his readers acknowledge reason and conform to its prin- 
ciples, and confines himself to proving to reason the su- 
pernatural facts asserted by the church. This he does 
conclusively, and in doing it does all that is necessary to 
be done for those who really understand and accept the 
authority of reason. We know no author, writing a pop- 
ular work who has done it better ; we are not certain but 
we might say, who has done it so well, so conclusively. 

In writing his book. Judge Burnett has rendered a 
noble homage to his new faith ; he has, too, performed a 



X 



EDITOR'S PREFACE 



patriotic act which will compare favorably with the most 
glorious deeds of our greatest patriots. Through him 
California has made a more glorious contribution to the 
Union than all the gold of her mines, for the truth is 
more precious than gold, yea than fine gold." — Brown- 
son's Quarterly Review, April, i860. 

The book as it now meets the reader, has been reduced 
to about one-half its original size. This task was ren- 
dered easy by the omission of the lengthy and frequent 
quotations, subsidiary arguments and repetitions, that 
the eminent jurist, unjustly to himself, evidently consid- 
ered necessary to a clearer understanding of explanations 
and lines of reasoning, that were sufficiently plain in the 
first instance. 

It is hoped that this abridgment has been accomplished 
without seriously disturbing the continuity of his treat- 
ment or of weakening the force of his arguments. 

The rest has been left almost as it came from the pen 
of the author. The theologian will discover an occa- 
sional technical inaccuracy, which the evident good faith 
of the distinguished convert together with his unquali- 
fied professions of submission to the judgment of the 
Church, will prevent even the most critical from inter- 
preting in other than a perfectly orthodox sense. 

The editor takes great pleasure in acknowledging his 
gratitude to Judge Burnett for the invaluable aid his 
book has been to him in his dealings with many sincere 
and intelligent non-Catholics, in their attempts to find the 
true church and hopes that it may be the means of assist- 
ing others to find the " One fold and the One Shepherd." 

James Sullivan, S. J., 
Saint Louis University, 
Saint Louis, Mo. 

Feast of All Saints, November ist, 1908. 



PREFACE 



I was once a Protestant, and I became a Catholic. The 
main reasons which led to this change will be found sub- 
stantially stated in the following work. My quotations of 
Scripture are generally from King James's translation, 
mainly for the reason that this was the one used by me 
in my pursuit of the true Church. 

My parents were Baptists ; but until the age of thirty- 
two, I was not a believer in the truth of Christianity. My 
own observations of men and things, as well as the argu- 
ments of others, at length satisfied me that the system was 
divine; and I at once acted upon my convictions, and 
joined myself to the Disciples, in 1840. In 1843 I 
moved with my family to Oregon. After my arrival 
and while I was temporarily located at Fort Vancouver, I 
attended High Mass as a mere spectator, on Christmas, 
at midnight. I had never witnessed anything like it be- 
fore, and the profound solemnity of the services — the 
intense, yet calm fervor of the worshippers — the great 
and marked differences between the two forms of worship 
— and the instantaneous reflection, that this was the 
Church claiming to be the only true Church, did make 
the deepest impression upon my mind for the moment. 
In all my religious experience, I had never felt an im- 
pulse so profound, so touching. I had witnessed very 
exciting scenes in Protestant worship, and had 'myself 
often participated, and was happy. But I had never felt 
any impulse so powerful — an impulse that thrilled my 
inmost soul. I gazed into the faces of the worshippers, 

xi 



xn 



PREFACE 



and they appeared as if they were actually looking at the 
Lord Jesus, and were hushed into perfect stillness, in His 
awful presence. 

As I knew nothing of the reasons upon which the Cath- 
olic theory assumes to rest, I soon thought I saw errors 
that I could not sanction. And then there came a pain- 
ful revulsion in my feelings, as if the flowers of Paradise 
had been almost within my reach, and had been suddenly 
withdrawn from sight, and I had found it to be but an 
illusion and a mistake. But still I can never forget the 
holy impulses of my soul at that deep moment. 

My knowledge of the Catholic theory was exceedingly 
general and indefinite. I had never read a work in its 
favor, and had never heard but two Catholic sermons, and 
they were not upon controversial points. I knew that 
the Old Church made what are called arrogant and intol- 
erant pretensions ; but in all my reading, in all my inter- 
course with men generally, and among my own kin, I had 
scarcely ever met with anything in her favor. From my 
limited opportunities, I had only learned that 

" To love her was shame, to revile her was glory." 

In the fall of 1844, a Baptist preacher settled in my im- 
mediate neighborhood, who had the published Debate be- 
tween Campbell and Purcell ; and as the Catholic ques- 
tion was often mentioned, and as I knew so little about it, 
I borrowed and read the book. I had the utmost confi- 
dence in the capacity of Mr. Campbell as an able debater. 
But while the attentive reading of the Debate did not con- 
vince me of the entire truth of the Catholic theory, I 
was greatly astonished to find that so much could be said 
in its support. On many points, and those of great im- 
portance, it was clear to my mind, that Mr. Campbell had 
been overthrown. Still, there were many objections to 



PREFACE 



xiii 



the Catholic Church, either not noticed by the Bishop, or 
not satisfactorily answered ; and I arose from the reading 
of that discussion still a Protestant. 

My thoughts continually recurred to the main posi- 
tions and arguments on both sides, and the more I re- 
flected upon the fundamental positions of the Bishop, the 
more force and power I found them to possess. My own 
reflections often afforded me answers to difficulties that, 
at first, seemed insurmountable, until the question arose 
in my mind, whether Mr. Campbell had done full justice 
to his side of the question. Many of his positions seemed 
so extreme and ill-founded, that I could not sanction 
them. All the prejudices I had, if any, were in his 
favor. I knew that it was worse than idle to indulge 
prejudices when investigating any subject whatever. I 
was determined to be true to myself ! and this could only 
be in finding the exact truth, and following it, when 
known. 

My mind was, therefore, left in a state of restless un- 
certainty; and I determined to examine the questions 
between Catholics and Protestants thoroughly, so far as 
my limited opportunities and poor abilities would permit. 
In the prosecution of this design, I procured all the 
works, on both sides, within my reach, and examined 
them alternately, side by side. This investigation occu- 
pied all my spare time for about eighteen months. I 
observed substantially the course of investigation pointed 
out in the introductioUj and followed the rules of con- 
struction therein given. Besides this, I prayed humbly 
and sincerely, that I might first know the truth, and then 
have the grace to follow it wherever it might lead me. 
I examined carefully, prayerfully, and earnestly, until I 
was satisfied, beyond a doubt, that the Old Church was 
the true, and the only true Church. 



xiv 



PREFACE 



"And I said, if there's peace to be found in the world, 
The heart that was humble might hope for it here." 

And in this I was not mistaken. I found her, as holy 
Cyprian of old had said, The house of unity and peace/' 
I mean to live and die in her communion. 



INTRODUCTION. 



It is a fact well known to every jurist and lawyer, that 
almost every new, and at first perplexing case arising in 
our courts of justice, (and which are not governed by 
statutory law,) is decided at last by the legitimate exten- 
sion and application of well-known and familiar princi- 
ples. The difficulty exists in the extension and applica- 
tion of the principle to new predicaments of fact ; and 
the judge who possesses discrimination and impartiality 
in the highest degree, is most certain to arrive at the 
correct conclusion. The power to discriminate between 
a just and a false application of a principle belongs to the 
highest order of mind. 

All the parts of every system of truth must be per- 
fectly consistent with each other. All the facts, and 
series of facts that have existed at any time from the be- 
ginning of the world to the present age, were consistent 
and harmonious in every particular. The existence of 
one does not displace that of another. They no more 
conflict with each other, than do the stars of heaven. 
Each occupies its place in the vast chain of events. And 
all the parts of a true system, as well as all facts, are 
not only thoroughly consistent one with another, but they 
all bear a certain relation to each other, more or less inti- 
mate. As all the events that ever did occur were con- 
nected with certain other events — with some as their 
causes, with others as their effects — so, all the truths of 
a true system are, in the same way, connected with each 
other. If, then, in the investigation of a certain system, 

XV 



xvi 



INTRODUCTION 



we can find its leading principle, by patient and honest 
application and extension of this principle, we shall be 
led, step by step, to the discovery of other principles, and 
finally be enabled to arrive at the whole truth. 

The object of every fair writer or speaker is to place, 
in the minds of others, an exact copy of his own thoughts, 
y'ln doing this, he selects words and phrases best adapted, 
in his opinion, to accomplish the end intended. If the 
writer or speaker understands the existing usages of the 
language he employs as a medium of thought, he selects 
those terms which will most accurately convey his true 
meaning to others. For this reason, the construction 
put upon the words of a writer or speaker by his con- 
temporaries, is generally the correct one. There are 
exceptions to this general rule, for the meaning may be 
misapprehended; but these exceptions are special cases, 
to be judged by the special circumstances of each partic- 
ular case. 

The philosophic author of Hermes, as cited by Dr. 
Wiseman in his lectures upon the Real Presence, has ex- 
pressed his views upon this subject in the following beau- 
tiful terms : 

" For what is conversation between man and man ? 
'Tis a mutual intercourse of speaking and hearing. To 
the speaker, 'tis to teach ; to the hearer, 'tis to learn. To 
the speaker, 'tis to descend from ideas to words; to the 
hearer, 'tis to ascend from words to ideas. If the hearer 
in this ascent can arrive at no ideas, then he is said not 
to understand ; if he ascends to ideas dissimilar and 
heterogeneous from the speaker's, then he is said to 
misunderstand. What then is requisite that he may 
be said to understand ? That he should ascend to certain 
ideas treasured up within himself, correspondent and 



INTRODUCTION 



xvii 



similar to those within the speaker. The same may be 
said of a writer and reader." 

I. The construction should he upon the entire Scrip- 
tures, taken and construed together, so as to give free 
force and effect to all the passages. 

The rule at law for the construction of statutes and 
written instruments, is substantially the same, with one 
exception, which will be stated in its proper place. 

" One part of a statute must be so construed by an- 
other, that the whole may (if possible) stand, (i Black- 
stone's Com. 89.) 

" It is an established rule in the exposition of statutes, 
that the intention of the lawgiver is to be deduced from 
a view of the whole, and of every part of a statute, taken 
and compared together." (i Kent's Com. 461). 

" The construction ought to be upon the entire deed, 
and not on any particular part of it. And such con- 
struction should be given, that, if possible, every part of 
the deed may be operative." (16 Johnson's N. Y. Re- 
ports, 172.) 

The reasons for this sensible rule are very simple. 
It is presumed that the lawmaker intended something 
by each and every provision of the statute, and that he 
also intended to be consistent with himself. But as a 
mere human legislator may, and often does, contradict 
himself, the courts will only give force and effect to the 
different provisions so far as possible. Such a limitation 
will not apply to the divine law, which is consistent, and 
not contradictory. 

There are many examples in the Scriptures .which 
show the necessity and propriety of this rule. In one 
place we are substantially told that we are saved by keep- 
ing the commandments — in another, by grace — in an- 



xviii 



INTRODUCTION 



other, by the blood of Christ — in another, by baptism — 
in another, by faith. These different provisions are not 
at all in conflict with each other, and may, therefore, 
be so construed together as to give force and effect to 
all. The correct construction would be, that we are 
saved by the agency of all these requisites taken together. 

The violation of this fundamental rule has, perhaps, 
led to more errors than any other. We have a notable 
instance in the temptation of our Lord by Satan, when 
he said : 

If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down ; for it is 
written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, 
and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any 
time thou dash thy foot against a stone." 

This proposition was very acutely made, and the quo- 
tation to sustain it seemed very appropriate. But the 
poor devil had forgotten that another passage of Scrip- 
ture must also be construed with it, and, consequently, 
his learning was completely put down by the reply of our 
Lord : It is written again. Thou shalt not tempt the 
Lord thy God." 

2. All the texts relating to the same subject must be 
considered as written by the same person, having a per- 
fect knowledge of all that had been zvritten before, the 
reader making a fair allozvance for the difference in the 
style of each writer, and the different character of the 
existing circumstances. 

The rule of law which requires all statutes relating to 
the same subject, though passed at different times, to be 
taken and construed together, is substantially similar to 
the above rule. The rule at law is based upon the pre- 
sumption that the lawgiver was competent, and therefore 
acquainted with the state of the law as it existed at the 



INTRODUCTION 



xix 



passage of the act, and had the previous laws in his mind 
when framing the statute. 

The framers of statutes may be, and are sometimes 
ignorant of the existing state of the law; and this fact 
may possibly render the rule subject to exceptions in spe- 
cial cases. But the rule I have laid down in reference 
to the proper construction of Scripture is not subject to 
such exceptions. The whole having been dictated by the 
same infallible Spirit, must be held equally entitled to 
our confidence. 

The prima facie presumption of competency in a hu- 
man, becomes conclusive when applied to a Divine Law- 
giver. 

3. Words of unlimited meaning are yet to he restricted 
by the general scope and intent of the system. 

Among the examples to be found in the Scriptures, 
coming within this rule, it will be sufficient to mention 
the one found in the sixteenth chapter of St. John's 
Gospel, where our Lord tells His Disciples that, when 
he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all 
truth." The phrase all truth is exceedingly broad, yet 
it must be restrained by the general scope and intent of 
the system Christ came to establish. It was no part 
of His system to teach mere truths of science. The latter 
class of truths cannot be embraced in the phrase all 
truth." 

The rule is founded in the principles of sound interpre- 
tation. At law it is substantially the same. A statute 
may contain very broad and sweeping terms, and yet 
they are restrained to the scope and intent of the act. 
So the provisions of the seventh amended article of the 
Constitution of the L^nited States, which, in general 
terms, secures the right of trial by jury, in all cases where 



XX 



INTRODUCTION 



the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty- 
dollars, is confined to trials in the Federal tribunals, 
and does not prevent the States from restricting the right 
of trial by jury to controversies involving a larger sum 
than twenty dollars. 

4. When a general principle is laid down in general 
terms, and without exceptions stated at the time, or in 
any other portions of the Scriptures, it must he taken 
in its widest sense compatible with the general scope and 
intent of the system. 

It is the practice of all lawgivers to state general prin- 
ciples embracing a whole class of cases, in general terms, 
and then to state the exceptions to the general principle 
specially. The form or manner of the statement of these 
exceptions is not at all material. They are often stated 
expressly as exceptions, and defined to be such ; but they 
are often stated simply as special provisions in reference 
to special cases, without any express statement that they 
are express exceptions. In either case they limit the 
meaning of the general clause. There are some prin- 
ciples embracing all cases, and without exception; while 
there are other principles that embrace only a great ma- 
jority of cases, and are, therefore, subject to some excep- 
tions. In regard to the latter class of principles, it is 
matter of convenience first to state the general principle 
in general terms, and then afterwards to state the excep- 
tions specially. We will suppose that the general princi- 
ple would embrace ninety-eight out of each hundred 
cases. It would then be very difficult to state each of 
the ninety-eight cases separately, while it would be very 
easy to state the two cases as exceptions. 

5. When such exceptions to the general rule are stated 
in any part of the Scriptures, they are to he taken out of 
the operation of the general principle as exceptions, leav- 



INTRODUCTION 



xxi 



ing the general principle to govern all other cases com- 
ing fairly within its import. 

This rule is properly but a branch of the fourth rule, 
but will be found useful in practice. Both these rules 
are substantially the same as those applied in similar 
cases at law. There are often general statutes passed, 
embracing a great many cases, and yet liable to excep- 
tions. These exceptions are often stated in the body 
of the act as exceptions — they are often stated in the 
same act, but not in the form of exceptions, but as pro- 
visions for particular cases, and they are often found in 
separate acts relating to special cases, which would other- 
wise come within the general principle. These special 
acts, as a general thing, have no express reference to 
the general act, but their provisions in their very nature 
are special, and must be taken out of the general princi- 
ple, because they conflict with it. To state a case in 
point : There was a general act passed by the legisla- 
ture regulating the Practice at Law. In this act there 
was a general provision requiring all process to be served 
upon the defendant by reading the same to him. There 
were many different forms of action, and in reference to 
one form of action, " Petition in Debt," there was a 
special act, and a clause in this act requiring the process 
to be served by delivering a copy of the writ to the de- 
fendant. There was no express reference in this special 
act to the general Practice Act, and yet there was no 
doubt as to the correct construction. In Petition in 
Debt" the process had to be served by copy, and in all 
the other cases by reading. 

Among similar examples in Scripture, it will be suffi- 
cient to mention one or two as illustrative of these two 
rules. It is said that we are saved through the merits 
of Christ. This is a general principle without any 



XXll 



INTRODUCTION 



exception. Again, it is said that " All things are possi- 
ble with God," but St. Paul says that " God cannot lie." 
This is a case of exception to the general rule. Ask, 
and you shall receive," " You do not receive because 
you ask amiss." 

6. The natural, simple, and literal construction is to be 
preferred, unless there he something, either in express 
words or in the context, to show a figurative meaning. 

The rule at law is substantially the same. 
The words of a statute," says the learned Commenta- 
tor on American Law, are to be taken in their natural 
and ordinary signification and import ; and if technical 
words are used, they are to be taken in a technical sense, 
(i Kent, 463.) 

The rule I have laid down is evidently founded upon 
the grounds of reason and experience. That construc- 
tion which is most obvious, simple and natural, is gen- 
erally the most correct in reference to any writer ; and 
before this rule should be departed from, there should 
exist good reasons for such a departure. As every writer 
and speaker is supposed, in simple justice to himself, his 
subject, and his readers or hearers, to select the most 
natural and simple terms, so the general rule must be 
in accordance with that presumption. 



CHAPTER I 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 

The Jazv of Christ must form a rule of moral conduct, 
and a standard of faith. 

The learned commentator on the laws of England 
defines municipal law to be, " A rule of civil conduct, 
prescribed by the supreme power in a State, command- 
ing what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." 

When he says, Commanding what is right, and pro- 
hibiting what is wrong," he means, as judged by the 
theory of municipal law, of which he was speaking. As 
judged by the theor}^ of civil government, and not by the 
law of God, or of abstract justice, the civil law always 
commands what is right, and prohibits what is wrong. 

As the civil law may be unjust, when judged by the 
principles of morality, the law-making power in political 
government could not rightfully require us to beUeve 
its enactments just. And as no power in such a gov- 
ernment can know the thoughts and intents of the mind, 
unless manifested by outward signs, the civil law could 
only place crime in action. No mere intention however 
wicked, can constitute a crime under this theory. The 
intention is only one of the ingredients of crime. And 
as the civil law leaves belief and intention untouched, 
it could never form a moral code. It lacks the wisdom, 
power, and justice required; and must, therefore, be 
exceedingly imperfect in these respects. All that the 

I 



2 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



law of the land can rightfully require us to do, is to 
comply with its provisions by our acts. 

But the infirmities necessarily incident to human legis- 
lation are not found in the law of God. That sublime 
code can rightfully require us to believe all its provisions 
to be just, because they are so, in point of fact; and we 
are only required to believe that which we may know to 
be unerringly true. And for the very reason that a 
fallible lawgiver could not rightfully assume to govern 
faith and intention, an infallible lawgiver should regulate 
both; otherwise, they would be left without government. 
And if faith and intention be left without control, there 
can be no pure morality, and no perfect obedience. The 
wicked intention is the first element of moral wrong. To 
hold a free agent responsible for this first voluntary act, 
is the most efficient, and for that reason, the most merci- 
ful rule. To teach the party governed, that he is re- 
sponsible for his evil thoughts and criminal intentions, 
is to check vice in its inception. So, to teach him that 
he must believe the truth is to secure his love and 
reverence for it, and his more ready and hearty obedience 
to it; for obedience will always be more faithful to a 
law believed to be just in itself, than to one whose justice 
is disputed. 

Whatever revelation God made to man, must have 
been just and true; and if just, it' must constitute a 
rule of moral conduct ; and if true, it must be believed. 
A perfect law in every particular, has a right to demand 
our perfect obedience, in thought, belief, and act. 

The human legislator prescribes his law, and says to 
the party governed ; " I have given you the best law I 
could; but it is still imperfect. I do not, therefore, ask 
you to believe it just; and if I did, my limited powers 
would not enable me to reach your thoughts and inten- 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



3 



tions. But as the good of society imperiously requires 
government, and government must, of necessity, require 
obedience, you must obey my law in act, whatever you 
may believe and intend." But an Infinite Lawgiver 
holds a different language, and says : " My statutes are 
just and true in every particular. I, therefore, require 
you to think right, intend right, and act right; and I 
have the right, the knowledge, and the power, to enforce 
obedience in all these particulars." 

Of the diiferent modes of publication, and of the ad- 
vantages of a mixed code. 

The law governing any associated body of men, either 
civil or ecclesiastical, may be promulgated in dift'erent 
ways; and, therefore, may be either written' or oral, 
or partly written and partly traditional. " But the man- 
ner," says Blackstone, in which this notification is to 
be made, is matter of very great indifference. It may 
be notified by universal tradition and long practice, which 
supposes a previous publication, as is the case of the 
common law of England. It may be notified, viva voce, 
by officers appointed for that purpose, as is done with 
regard to proclamations, and such acts of parliament 
as are appointed to be publicly read in churches and other 
assemblies. It may lastly be notified by writing, print- 
ing, or the like ; which is the general course taken with 
all our acts of parliament." (i Com. 46.) 

As language, whether oral or written, is still but a 
sign or medium, by and through which our intelligence 
communicates ideas to another, the character of the 
law itself is not affected by the mere manner of its 
publication. The will of the legislator exists without 
any regard to the mode of publication ; and the publica- 
tion is only evidence of that will. 



4 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



These two modes of publication have their respective 
advantages. A written code is more concise and port- 
able, while a traditional code is more full and complete. 
A mixed code combines the advantages of both, and is 
most preferable in practice. The two parts of a mixed 
code mutually explain and illustrate each other. And 
in speaking of the unwritten law, Blackstone, the learned 
commentator on the laws of England, says : 

" With us at present the monuments and evidences 
of our legal customs are contained in the records of the 
several courts of justice, in books of reports and judicial 
decisions, and in the treatises of learned sages of the 
profession, preserved and handed down to us from the 
times of highest antiquity. However, I, therefore, style 
these parts of our law lex non scripta, because their 
original institution and authority are not set down in 
writing, as acts of parliament are." (i Com. 64.) 

But here a very natural and a very material question 
arises," says the same learned commentator, how are 
these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom 
is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the 
judges in the several courts of justice. They are the 
depositaries of the laws, the living oracles, who must 
decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an 
oath to decide according to the law of the land. * * * 
And, indeed, these judicial decisions are the principle 
and most authoritative evidence that can be given of the 
existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the 
common law. The judgment itself, and all the pro- 
ceedings previous thereto, are carefully registered and 
preserved, under the name of records, in public reposi- 
tories set apart for that particular purpose ; and to them 
frequent recourse is had when any critical question arises, 
in the determination of which, former precedents may 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



5 



give light or assistance. * * * For it is an estab- 
lished rule to abide by former precedents when the same 
points come again in litigation ; as well to keep the scales 
of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with 
every new judge's opinion, as also because the law in 
that case being solemnly declared and determined, what 
before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now 
become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast 
of any subsequent judge to alter or vary from, accord- 
ing to his private sentiments ; he being sworn to deter- 
mine, not according to his own private judgment, but 
according to the known laws and customs of the land ; 
not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain 
and expound the old one." 

To those who are engaged in the practical administra- 
tion of the law, the advantages of a mixed system will 
become apparent. A written code can only conveniently 
embrace the leading principles of a system, expressed in 
general terms. It cannot be so full or complete as 
the unwritten law. In the application of a written sys- 
tem to particular cases, where it is not aided and illus- 
trated by the unwritten law, the difficulties would seem 
to be great. It is very doubtful whether any complete 
system of written law, suited to the various wants of 
a civilized people, could be formed and practically put 
in operation, without the aid of the unwritten law. It 
would necessarily be either so concise as to be defective, 
in omitting necessary provisions, or so voluminous and 
minute, as to become inconvenient for ordinary cases. 

Laws, as a general rule, can only lay down general 
principles, expressed in general terms ; and one general 
principle may embrace a number of subordinate prin- 
ciples legitimately flowing from it. The subordinate 
principles, when not developed in the law itself, must 



6 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



be discovered and applied by the courts ; otherwise there 
is a defect of justice. If, then, a written code be adopted, 
and the unwritten law excluded, the judges will find it 
more difficult to administer such a system, and they will 
be forced, either to pass by wrongs without a remedy, 
or they must take the responsibility of extending the 
principles of the statute to doubtful cases. 

It would seem to be exceedingly difficult, in the nature 
of things, to adopt an entire written code that will be 
sufficiently full and complete, so as to embrace all the 
cases demanding relief under civil government. It is 
by a combination of the two parts of written and un- 
written law that the most just, complete, and convenient 
code can be formed. The statute law will then embrace 
all new changes, and also the more ordinary, every-day 
provisions, while the unwritten law will contain the 
more minute provisions necessary to be applied in critical 
cases. The Romans, Spaniards, and Swedes had a com- 
mon law. (Blackstone's Com. 66, 74.) 

Of tradition as a medium of transmission. 

It has been often objected that tradition is an unsafe 
medium of transmission; and those who urge this ob- 
jection usually illustrate it by referring to the uncertain 
nature of general reports circulating in a community. 
That tradition is an uncertain medium of transmission 
when used for the preservation of unimportant matters, 
in which no one is particularly interested is true. 

But such is not the case with regard to laws. They 
are matters too deeply important to be neglected or for- 
gotten, for the reason that they not only regulate the 
dearest interests of society, but they are of daily applica- 
tion, and competent tribunals are made the depositaries, 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



7 



as Blackstone says. That tradition, under such circum- 
stances, and in reference to such important matters, is a 
safe, certain and efficient means of transmission, is 
demonstrated in the case of the common law of England ; 
for after all the changes that have been made in that 
system, and all that may hereafter be needed, the great 
mass of its provisions will most likely remain. 

The true character of laws is best seen and under- 
stood v/hen they are practically administered. As that 
military commander is the most consummate chieftain 
whose plans work out most beautifully upon the field 
of battle, so that system of law is the best which produces 
the most practical good. And our great judges, our 
best law writers, from Lord Hale to Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, and from Blackstone to Kent, are almost, if not 
quite, unanimous in their admiration of the common law, 
and in their condemnation of all hasty and crude changes 
in the system. If we look into the numerous and per- 
plexing cases that have arisen in courts of justice in 
modern times, we shall find that the most difficult ques- 
tions have been in reference to the construction of stat- 
utes — that the most uncertainty and confusion have been 
produced by these frequent changes — and that of the 
two, the common law is the more uniform, consistent, 
and certain. 

Mr. Justice Cowen, among other things, says: 
There is scarcely any branch of legal policy more 
worthy of being enforced than that which aims to keep 
the laws of a nation the same in all respects from one 
age to another, except in points where change becomes 
absolutely necessary." " Time," says Lord Hale, " is wiser 
than all the wits in the w^orld, and the law which has 
been tried by it has the highest possible evidence in its 



8 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



favor. Time is the schoolmaster which teaches law 
most effectually, and without which it cannot be gener- 
ally known." 

If, then, a great system of law, so nearly approach- 
ing perfection, and, as Sir Matthew Hale says, " is vast 
and comprehensive," and " consists of infinite particu- 
lars," has been transmitted by tradition from age to 
age, in a form so fixed, certain, and uniform, upon what 
ground can we say that such a medium is unsafe in 
the transmissions of laws in the preservation of which 
every member of the association is so deeply interested? 

The abstract objection against tradition as a medium 
of transmission is not only shown to be unfounded by 
the historical test in the case of the common law of 
England and other countries, but also by the history 
of the creation and of God's early dealing with man- 
kind, which was transmitted by tradition from age to 
age, for the space of two thousand years, until written 
out by Moses ; speaking of w^hich. Dr. Spring says : 

Before his word was reduced to writing, these various 
communications were narrated, treasured up in the mem- 
ory, and became a traditionary revelation." 

So far as abstract considerations go, they are not 
against the position that the law of Christ is partly 
written and partly oral; but for the reasons already 
given, and others that will be hereafter stated, they 
would seem strongly to support it. And it was well 
admitted by Dr. Spring, in reference to this law of Christ, 
that " there is no absurdity in supposing it to be partly 
oral and partly written, while both might be amplified 
and interpreted by one another." 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



9 



Of the inspiration and authenticity of the written law 
of Christ. 

In the nature of things, before the mind can arrive 
at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired, there must 
be sufficient proof of this fact. This evidence must 
either be found in tradition, or in the book itself, or in 
both combined. If the point to be proved is simply 
the historical existence of the Scriptures, then the testi- 
mony of ordinary history will suffice. In other words, 
it will be competent to prove that the separate books, 
bearing the names of the writers, were in fact written 
by them; for ordinary history can show us that those 
books were in existence at a certain period, purporting 
to have been written by the authors whose names they 
bear; and this will, prima facie, prove their authenticity 
and genuineness, as the same kind of testimony would 
show the authenticity of the works of any other writer. 
It will also prove, prima facie, the integrity of the 
writers, for this must be presumed until the contrary 
is shown. But when we prove the authenticity of the 
books of the New Testament — that they were in fact 
written by the persons whose names they bear, and at 
the periods mentioned, we have not established anything 
more than the facts stated in each of the books them- 
selves. And if the fact of inspiration be not stated in 
the books, we must of necessity, resort to other testi- 
mony, or admit the assumed fact without proof. In 
short, we must look to proof outside the record. 

It is, indeed, insisted that the inspiration of Scripture 
is, in part, proven by evidence seen upon the face thereof, 
although not expressly stated in words. Thus the Rev. 
Hartwell Horne says : The miracles related in the 
old and new Testaments are proofs that the Scriptures 
3 



io 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



were given by inspiration of God." (Introduction, vol. 
i., p. 204, 7th ed.) And Dr. Spring says: " These books 
speak for themselves that they are not the work of 
men." (Dis. 28.) 

It would seem somewhat difficult to understand how 
the miracles related in the Bible can be a proof of the 
inspiration of the books in which they are simply re- 
corded. We can well understand how these miracles 
were proofs of the character and capacity of the persons 
by whom they were performed, but it is not so easy 
to see how they can constitute proofs of the inspiration 
of books written long after they occurred. The facts 
related may constitute proofs. This inherent capacity, 
as proofs, exists in the facts themselves, no matter 
when or by whom related, so they are duly authenti- 
cated. If, therefore, the same facts are related in any 
other book, and their simple relation proves the book 
inspired, then the history of Josephus is inspired, be- 
cause true miracles are related therein. 

It is not, then, the character or quality of the facts' 
related that proves the inspiration of the historian. 
These facts may be related by an uninspired historian 
as well as any other class of visible facts. And when 
Dr. Spring says the Scriptures " speak for themselves 
that they are not the work of men," he does not mean 
to say that they state so in express words; but that 
the extraordinary character of the facts and doctrines 
stated is proof that the mind of man could not have 
originated the system therein recorded. But this relates 
only to the nature of the matter recorded; and not to 
the inspired character of the record itself. That which 
assumes to be a deposition may contain important and 
true evidence, and yet this will not entitle it to be read. 
It must have been properly taken. And I apprehend that 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



II 



if an honest, yet uninspired historian, had been with 
Christ, and witnessed his miracles, and had, to the best 
of his abiHty faithfully recorded what he saw, and that 
this record had come down to us, neither Dr. Spring 
nor Mr. Horne could have pronounced as to its inspira- 
tion, simply because of the character of the matter re- 
lated. 

It may well be conceded that the human mind is 
competent to determine the extent of its own powers, 
and that, consequently, the system recorded in the Scrip- 
tures could not have originated with man. But this 
is not the only fact to be proven. We wish also to 
know whether the Scriptures contain nothing but the 
truth; and when we reach the conclusion that the record 
is inspired, we are satisfied that it contains no falsehood. 
The inspiration, when once established, is a conclusive 
guaranty that the record is true. 

But how can the human mind assume the capacity 
to determine, from the face of the record itself, that 
there have been no additions or omissions ? The capacity 
to decide upon the face of the record, that no changes 
have been made, must be equal to the capacity to 
originate. Suppose some texts omitted, and some inter- 
polated, would the human mind be able to restore the 
mutilated text to its original form? And with a copy 
of the original Scriptures before him, would not the 
forger be able to make so good an imitation as to defy 
detection by a simple comparison of the two, when it 
was unknown which was the genuine record? 

Of the logical course of examination to ascertain the 
inspiration of the authors of the Nezv Testament. 

What, then, is the logical course of examination which 
will lead an original inquirer to the conclusion that 



12 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



the New Testament Scriptures are inspired? The point 
to be proven is that these books are all, and each, of 
them inspired records, containing only the truth, and 
written by the authorized agents of God. 

It is obvious that any being inspired by God, for a 
given purpose, must be His agent for the end intended. 
The principal who, in virtue of his own nature, possesses 
a mass of powers, may delegate them in smaller or 
larger portions, at his pleasure. So, God can delegate 
inspiration and authority to one or more individuals 
for one specific purpose only, or for several specific 
purposes. In such cases, the inspiration and authority 
will be confined to the specific purposes mentioned in 
the commission. It is also obvious to common sense 
that when power is delegated from a principal to his 
agent, that the principal must himself give the evidence 
of that fact. Power and inspiration could not flow from 
God, without His consent, and the evidence of such a 
delegation to another must necessarily come from him. 
His act alone can constitute such evidence. And this 
evidence must be of such a character as to be appre- 
hended by the persons to be aft'ected by the acts of 
the agent; otherwise, the fact of agency could not be 
known to them. 

With these principles in his mind the inquirer takes 
up the New Testament and any other history relating 
facts bearing upon the question. He regards them 
all as placed upon the same ground — as simple, unin- 
spired history. He considers the New Testament writers 
as men, competent, without inspiration, to state facts 
they witnessed, and relate discourses they heard. The 
genuineness of their works, and the integrity of the 
writers, are proved to him in the same way, and by 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



13 



the same evidence, as the works and integrity of the 
other historians he may consult. 

The miracles of Christ were visible acts. So, His 
discourses were delivered in human language, and could 
be recorded, as any other discourses. The inquirer be- 
comes satisfied, from the testimony, that the miracles 
related were in fact performed by Christ. From his 
knowledge of the more obvious and familiar laws of 
nature, he knows they could not have been the acts of 
men, and he draws at once the conclusion of Nicodemus, 
that no man could do those things, except God be with 
him. The performance of the miracles is established 
by the historical testimony, and the miracles, when 
proven, establish the character and capacity of Christ. 

The inquirer is then prepared to believe Christ upon 
His word ; for if he is God, He cannot lie ; and if He be 
not God, but only an inspired agent, still he cannot 
lie as to the facts of his agency and inspiration. What- 
ever account, therefore, the divine or inspired person 
gives of his character and of -his mission, must be be- 
lieved, because God, by His own act, has conclusively 
established the veracity of the person, in reference to 
those matters. Whenever such person assumes to act in 
his capacity as such agent, he must be believed. Then as 
to what Christ said, the same simple historical testimony 
relates to it. IMatthew and John heard it, and have left 
their record. So, the historical testimony equally proves 
the miracles, and discourses, and acts of the apostles. 
The miracles performed by the apostles prove them 
to have been veracious and competent witnesses, and 
their testimony, as to facts, must be true. 

From the testimony of the Xew Testament, he learns 
that Christ said He would build His church, against 



14 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



which the gates of hell should never prevail — that He 
commanded His followers to hear this church — that 
He commissioned the eleven to teach all nations — that 
they did set up the Kingdom, the church, and put the 
law of Christ into practical operation. By the record 
he is informed how the church was practically governed 
— what was its character, what were its powers as then 
exercised, and that the whole deposit of faith was left 
by Christ with the Church. And his reason and common 
sense assure him that Christ, like any other founder 
of a government, would necessarily make the institution 
created by Himself, the depositary of the laws intended 
for its own direction. He finds it historically related, 
as a matter of fact, that long after the organization 
of the Church, a difficult question arose among its rulers ; 
that to settle this question the Council of Jerusalem was 
called; that some of the apostles, as well as other gov- 
ernors of the Church, participated; that this body ren- 
dered a final and conclusive decree, declaring the law 
applicable to a particular case; that this decree was the 
act of the Church. 

Having thus arrived at the knowledge of the fact 
that the Church is an infallible witness, he finds, by 
examining her history, that she has attested the fact 
that the works of the New Testament authors, including 
those of Mark and Luke (who were not apostles), were 
the inspired word of God, originally deposited with 
the Church. In this way the inquirer arrives at the 
conviction that the canon of Scripture is complete, con- 
taining all the inspired books, and only such. With him 
ordinary history proved the miracles and discourses of 
Christ and His apostles ; they proved the institution and 
character of the Church; and the Church proved the 
inspiration of the New Testament writers; the chain 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



15 



of testimony is complete, and he has supernatural or 
inspired testimony to the fact of the inspiration of each 
writer, of each book, of the New Testament. 

It would seem exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, 
upon any other authority, to establish the inspiration of 
all the books composing the New Testament, especially 
those of Mark and Luke. These writers perform no 
miracles, so far as we are informed; and we have no 
testimony of Christ as to their inspiration, nor do any 
of the apostles tell us they were inspired, nor do the 
writers themselves claim any inspiration. So far from 
Mark or Luke saying they were inspired historians, the 
latter, in his preface, seems to write as an ordinary 
historian, as he states he received the facts recorded 
from the witnesses who had delivered them to him. 
And if they had stated they were inspired, such a state- 
ment alone, made by persons whose veracity was not 
first divinely attested, could not have proven it to be 
true, as it would have been only that human testimony 
which any impostor could have given, without the fear 
of direct contradiction. To prove the performance of 
miracles, or the delivery of discourses, which are ex- 
ternal matters, cognizant by the senses, and seen and 
heard by a number of witnesses, who are mutual checks 
upon each other, the testimony of ordinary history is 
amply sufficient. But when we come to prove the higher 
fact of the secret and invisible communication of the 
Holy Ghost to the minds of Mark and Luke, we must 
have testimony as high as the fact to be proved — that 
of miracles, or of persons whose veracity has already 
been divinely attested. A man cannot prove his own 
inspiration by his own testimony, independent of that 
of God. This secret inspiration could not be known 
to others not inspired, and the ordinary historian could 



i6 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



not give evidence of that which, from its nature, could 
not be known to him without the visible attestation of 
God. 

Of the Unwritten law of Christ. 

From the simple history of the New Testament it is 
shown that Christ appeared among men as a lawgiver — 
that He promulgated his law orally, that He gave no 
command that His laws should be reduced to writing, 
but having verbally instructed His apostles, He com- 
missioned them to act as His agents. These inspired 
agents carried out the commission, and the kingdom was 
governed for many years before any part of the law 
was written. This unwritten law was the original law 
of the Church. It was given and practically adminis- 
tered in that form, and in that form was obligatory upon 
every member of the ^association. 

This being the original and established form of the 
code, to substitute the written law for the unwritten, 
either in whole or in part, would require the affirmative 
act, either of the lawmaker Himself or of His lawful 
agent. If, then, it is true, that only a part of the 
original law of Christianity has been written, the entire 
code must consist of both these parts, unless the un- 
written portion has been expressly repealed. 

If our Lord intended that the law governing the 
Church organized by Him should become a written code, 
it would seem very natural and reasonable that He 
should have made provision for that end, as was done 
in the case of the Old Law. It would seem difficult 
to understand why God, intending to accomplish the 
same end in both cases, should make express provision 
to secure the end in one, and not in the other. Upon 
the theory that He intended the code to be written in 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



17 



the one, and not in the other, we can well understand 
why God acted differently in the two cases. 

We meet with no intimation, either in the words of 
Christ or those of His apostles, that any such intention 
ever existed. And when we come to look into the 
books themselves, and consider their history, we shall 
see abundant reason to negative any such idea. We 
find that these books were the result, not of any direc- 
tion by Christ that they should be written, but of casual 
circumstances. Matthew wrote for a specific class of 
readers, and Luke wrote for a single individual. The 
Epistles of Paul were evidently written to different 
churches and individuals, whom he could not visit at 
the time, and for the purpose of correcting some local 
corruptions or heresies. The very form in which the 
books of the New Testament are written, not being 
regular and methodical, shows they were not intended 
by their authors to form a complete code of law. Many 
of the most important doctrines mentioned by St. Paul 
were very concisely stated, and introduced parenthetically, 
and as illustrations. The apostles were expressly com- 
manded to preach, and this mode of teaching became 
obligatory. But as to teaching by written instructions, 
there seems to have been nothing determined by Christ. 

As the unwritten law was the first law of Christianity, 
and the only law for many years ; before the written law 
could become a part. of the code, it would be requisite 
to establish its validity by some affirmative act. The 
mere fact that portions of the law were subsequently 
written, would not, of itself, show any intention to sub- 
stitute those portions for the entire code. If we go 
back to the earliest British statutes now extant, the fact 
of their existence as Avritten law, and the passage of 
numerous statutes since, by parliament, will not afford the 



i8 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



slightest evidence of any intention to abolish the common 
law, except where it has been expressly superseded, or 
the statute is manifestly incompatible with it. But it 
may be justly said, that the statutes themselves recognize 
the common law as a part of the law of the realm. 
This is true; but it would seem to be equally true that 
the written, expressly admits the existence of the un- 
written law as part of the Christian code. Of this in 
another place. 

Those who insist that the written word contains the 
entire law of Christ, are bound it would seem, by every 
rule of sound interpretation, to show at least one of 
two things: i. That the written law contains all of the 
original unwritten law; or 2. That admitting it not to 
contain all the original law of the kingdom, it has been 
by competent authority, expressly adopted as an entire 
substitute for it. For unless one or the other of these 
positions can be satisfactorily proven, the presumption of 
law and right reason would always be, that the code con- 
sists of two parts, the written and the unwritten. 

The same matter further considered. 

As to the first position, that the written includes all 
of the unwritten law, there is no satisfactory proof ; 
but the evidence seems clearly to establish the contrary 
fact. It is true that St. Luke says, in the preface to 
his Gospel, that he had " perfect understanding of all 
things from the very first " ; and in his Acts of the 
Apostles he says, " the former treatise have I written 
of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach " ; yet 
these general expressions are not only limited by his 
own statements in other places, but by the statements 
of other New Testament writers and by the facts re- 
corded by them. For Luke himself informs us that 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



19 



Christ was seen of the apostles forty days after His 
Passion, and speaking of the things pertaining to the 
kingdom of God; and this writer no where assumes 
to give these instructions of our Lord in full. Besides, 
Matthew, John and Mark record numerous facts and 
instructions of our Lord not mentioned by Luke ; and 
St. John tells us that many other things Jesus did, which 
he does not himself record, and says, in strong hyper- 
bolical language, that if they all should be written, every 
one, the world itself, he supposes, could not contain the 
books. And none of the subsequent books assume to 
contain all the instructions of Christ or of His apostles. 
Indeed this position is so clear, that I am not aware of 
any writer who maintains the contrary. 

In reference to this matter, Dr. Spring says : " The 
Saviour appeared among men as a living teacher. We 
have no evidence that His personal instructions were 
delivered to the apostles in writing, or that the preach- 
ing of the apostles was in any other way than orally. 
On the other hand, we do not deny that both Christ 
himself, and His apostles, uttered many and important 
truths that were never committed to writing." Again ; 

But there is no evidence that any of them (the in- 
structions of Christ and His apostles), or even any of 
the books of the New Testament, were written until 
years after His ascension into Heaven." (Dissertation 

I7-) 

These are very important admissions, and while they 
concede no more than the simple truth, they give rise 
to very serious and interesting inquiries. 

Was Christ a lawgiver? As such, was He powerless, 
incompetent, or frivolous? In giving His law, did He 
so exhaust His powers that He made no provision for 
the preservation and perpetuation of His entire code? 



20 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



Or did He intend that the Christians of the first age 
should be governed by a full and complete code of 
law, while the Christians of all succeeding ages should 
be governed by a mutilated code, robbed of " many 
and important truths ? " Did He intend that the Church, 
in the days of the apostles, should believe one system 
of faith, and His followers, in after ages, should believe 
another? On the contrary, did not Christ build but one 
Church, for the government of which He gave but one 
law? And did He not intend that this entire code, as 
He delivered it, should govern this one Church, from 
the first even to the last period of her existence upon 
earth? Did not the Christians of the ApostoHc day live 
under the same dispensation and under the same code 
of law as we of the present? Were they not required 
to believe the same things? 

Our Lord promised His apostles the Holy Ghost, who 
should teach them all things, and bring all things 
to their remembrance whatsoever He had said unto 
them." (John xiv, 26). And after making this in- 
violable promise. He gave them that imperative com- 
mand to teach all nations to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you." This command was 
the last one given — was to take effect and be put in 
force on and after the day of Pentecost, and, therefore, 
included all things Christ had before that day com- 
manded the apostles to observe, except the few com- 
mands specially limited to them, such as the command 
to tarry in Jerusalem. The command in the commission 
is general, and for a general purpose, and not limited 
by any other text; and, therefore, must be taken in its 
widest sense compatible with the general scope of the 
whole system. The apostles executed this commission, 
for St. Paul tells the elders of Ephesus : " I have not 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



21 



shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." 
(Acts XX, 27). And the same apostle says to the 
Galatians : " But though we, or an angel from heaven, 
preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which 
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." And 
so important did St. Paul esteem this doctrine that he 
repeats it in the next verse, almost in the same words. 
(Gal. i, 8.) 

If, therefore, the Gospel received and taught by the 
apostles, was made up of certain requisites, no man 
is authorized to preach any other Gospel made up of 
any other requisites, either more or less. How, then, 
can the Gospel which does not contain " many and im- 
portant truths uttered by Christ and His Apostles," 
as Dr. Spring admits, be the same gospel preached by 
the Apostles ? If we can omit " many and important 
truths " and the identity of the gospel be not destroyed, 
what limit can there be to such omissions? Suppose we 
strike from the constitution of the United States, many 
and important " provisions, would it still be the same 
constitution ? 

As the law .of Christ was originally promulgated orally, 
and reduced to practice in that form, and for many 
years the entire church was so governed — and as the 
written law is conceded not to contain " many and im- 
portant truths " — before we can assume that the entire 
unwritten code has been repealed, the proofs should be 
of the highest and most conclusive character. The in- 
tention thus to mutilate a great system of law, given 
for the government of the same perpetual institution, 
and given by a Divine Legislator, Who could make His 
law perfect at the beginning without the necessity of 
subsequent change, ought to be shown by proofs re- 
markably clear and full ; for it would seem a strange 



22 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



anomaly, that a lawgiver of such a character should so 
defectively arrange His government, that His code should 
become incomplete in a very few years after its promul- 
gation; thus leaving the subsequent subjects of His 
kingdom not so well governed as those at the beginning. 
Such a result might well happen from the imperfect 
system of a human legislator, and contrary to his in- 
tention. But how the law of Christ could be thus 
crippled, contrary to His intention, is most difficult to 
imagine. For we cannot conceive why the " many and 
important truths " should have been uttered by Christ 
and His apostles, unless it was intended they should 
be preserved; nor can we think that Christ and His 
apostles were idle or powerless — that they uttered 
truths to be forgotten — enacted laws not to be obeyed 
— and that they promulgated important principles, form- 
ing a part of one entire system of law, that they, never- 
theless, intended should be lost. 

It is true that St. John says : " But these are written, 
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God; and that believing ye might have life through 
His name." But this he spoke of his own gospel only, 
as can be seen in the preceding verse. If the apostle 
intended anything exclusive in this statement, so as to 
show that his gospel was alone necessary and sufficient, 
independent of any other part of the law, then he 
intended to exclude, as well the other Scriptures, even 
his own Epistles and his Revelations, as the unwritten 
law itself. 

Of the Scriptural view of the written and the unwritten 

Law. 

The apostle speaks of the character of all Scripture, 
without distinction, in this way: 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



23 



" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
for instruction in righteousness : that the man of God 
may be perfect, thoroughly furnishes unto every good 
work." 

Now, when St. Paul says that all Scripture is profitable 
to produce a certain end, does he mean to say that it is 
alone sufficient? Does he mean to say to Timothy, 
" The Scripture is the only rule necessary " ? In other 
words is there anything exclusive in the form of ex- 
pression used? I cannot so understand it. On the 
contrary, the term profitable gives to the apostle's 
language a limited meaning, and shows that his intention 
was not to exclude tradition, but to include " all Scrip- 
ture," as being profitable to produce the end stated. 
Two or more means may be profitable to produce the 
same given end, and we may, therefore, speak of each 
one separately, and say it is profitable for that purpose. 
The term, in this place, means useful, advantageous ; and 
to speak of the sole agent in producing the indicated 
end, as being profitable, would seem not to be accurate. 
The word able or sufficient would express such exclusive 
meaning better. 

And when we are told in Scripture, in one place, that 
we are justified by grace; in another, by faith; in a 
third, by confession and faith; in a fourth, by baptism; 
and in a fifth, by keeping the commandments, we cannot 
say that these expressions, though much stronger than 
the word profitable, are intended to exclude all agents in 
justification and salvation, except one only, in each 
of the cases mentioned. On the contrary, we must un- 
derstand that all these agents form parts of one entire 
system, and all combine to produce the result stated. 

The language of St. Paul, in portions of his other 



24 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



epistles, seems still more explicit. To the Corinthians 
he says : 

" Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me 
in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them 
to you." (I Cor. xi, 2.) 

To the Thessalonians he says : 
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the tradi- 
tions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or 
our epistle." 

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from 
every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the 
tradition which he received of us." (II Thess. ii, 15, 
iii, 6.) 

These passages are very much to the point, and give 
rise to very important reflections. 

It must be conceded that the Thessalonians had been 
taught the entire law of Christ; and this entire law the 
apostle calls " the traditions," whether taught by word 
or epistle. That which was taught by word and that 
by epistle were equally obligatory; and they were both 
placed upon the same footing, and entitled to precisely 
the same confidence and obedience. 

Under the Catholic theory, the Scriptures and Tradi- 
tion are held to be but constituent of one whole system of 
law, each part containing nothing but the truth, and both 
parts, taken together, only containing all the truth. 
There can be no theoretical contradiction or inconsistency 
herein ; and there can be none, in point of fact, unless 
truths have either been lost, or error added to the sys- 
tem, by one or both of these parts. 

It is true, that in systems of civil law, composed of 
two parts, written and unwritten, there is always a pro- 
vision, that where they conflict, the written law shall 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



25 



prevail, as being the last will of the legislator. This 
provision is predicated upon the ground that human legis- 
lation is imperfect — that it may need amendment — 
that the lawmaker is actually faUible, and for that reason 
may contradict himself. Hence such a provision be- 
comes necessary. But the same principle cannot apply 
to a system of law made by Christ. 

Blackstone says, as we have seen, that the judges of 
the courts are the depositaries of the common law — 
that they determine what it is — and that their decision 
is the most authoritative evidence that can be given of 
the prior existence of such a custom. But the learned 
commentator did not mean to say that such a custom 
became a law because of these decisions ; for the judges 
are not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to declare 
and maintain the old one. The courts only declare the 
law — the legislative power makes it. The law was in 
existence before the courts so declared it. So, with the 
Catholic Church. Under her theory, she is the depos- 
itary of the entire law, not delegated to pronounce a new 
law, but simply to declare and expound the old one. 
Her decisions do not create a law — do not make that 
law which was not before such — but are simply evidence 
of the law once delivered to the saints." 

The fact being undeniable and conceded, that many 
and important truths uttered by Christ and His apostles 
were never committed to writing ; " and, therefore, not 
to be found in the New Testament, it is difficult, upon 
any system of sound logic, to reject Tradition. Such 
a rejection leads to so much confusion and contradiction, 
that I was wholly unable to find any warrant, either in 
Scripture or common sense, to support it. It is deroga- 
tory to Christ, as a lawgiver, and to the Church as an 

institution founded by Him. 
4 



26 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



To maintain that God created anything in vain, is to 
impute to Him an infirmity, deeply disparaging to His 
character as Creator. We may not be able to comprehend 
the exact use for which portions of the Universe were 
designed, but we can see the purpose for which most 
portions of the visible creation were made; and the con- 
sistency and beauty of these portions should satisfy us 
that nothing was made in vain, though it be true that 
our limited intellects will not enable us to scan the entire 
creation at a glance, and designate the precise purpose 
for which each portion was made. So, if we say that 
Christ made any portion of His code of law in vain, 
we impute to Him an idle frivolity deeply disparaging 
to His dignity as a Divine Lawgiver. 

The true theory. 

It occurred to me that Christ would never make a 
system of law, and permit it to be either mutilated or 
lost; that He never would have committed His law to 
the world at large — to aliens and strangers — to take 
its chances of preservation, like the teachings of mere 
philosophers ; that He would perpetuate it entire, either 
by His special superintendence, or by depositing it with 
an inspired and protected guardian ; that the latter method 
was not only most in accordance with reason and his 
system of governing men, but with the express declara- 
tion of Scripture ; and that if He adopted either of these 
methods, the truths of the system, written or unwritten, 
would alike come down to us as originally given, that we 
might enjoy, if we would, the same advantages as the 
Christians of the early church. And I could not con- 
ceive why Christ should build a church against which 
the gates of Hell should never prevail, and which St. 
Paul declared to be the pillar and ground of the 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



27 



truth, and yet not commit the very law intended for the 
government of this great institution to its keeping. The 
idea that Christ, as a Divine Legislator, should organize 
an institution, such as He and Paul described it, and 
yet it be incapable of knowing its own faith, and not a 
credible witness of the same — thus creating an associa- 
tion of living men, wide as the world, and durable as 
time, and yet so frail and unreliable as not to deserve 
the respect and confidence due even to ordinary civil in- 
stitutions, would seem, upon its face, to be wholly in- 
admissible. 

It did seem to me that those who reject Tradition, 
under the idea of attaining greater certainty, did, indeed, 
increase the uncertainty; not only by destroying a part 
of the law itself, but by attacking the credibility of the 
only proper and reliable witness to the inspiration and 
authenticity of the entire canon of Scripture. By con- 
ceding that " many and important truths " of the system 
have never been written, and must, therefore, be lost, 
because the testimony of the Church is unworthy of be- 
lief, the character of our Lx>rd as a Lawgiver, and of 
His Church as a competent witness, is depreciated, and 
the whole subject left in irremediable doubt. 

In the Catholic theory, there is a combination of all 
the proofs, as well as beauty, strength, and consistency. 
Every motive of credibility and every proof is therein 
preserved. Knowing that the art of printing would not 
be invented for fourteen centuries, and that the great 
mass of men would always be unable to read; and that, 
therefore, an entire written law interpreted by each in- 
dividual for himself in the last resort, would be im- 
practicable, our Lord, for these, and other reasons, 
adopted a method that must be practical everywhere, 
and at all periods; and, therefore, promulgated His law 



28 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



orally, and commanded His apostles and their successors 
to do the same thing, leaving such portions of the law 
to be reduced to writing as after circumstances might 
render prudent and advisable. By this theory, the Church 
is the inspired depositary, witness, and interpreter of 
the entire code left by Christ and His apostles, so that 
no part of the law can be lost, and the code remains 
entire, without mutilation or change ; and the work of 
Christ, and the institution founded by Him, remain per- 
fect and complete, and worthy of the character of a 
Divine Architect. 

The testimony of the Ancient Fathers. 

In every examination regarding any question of fact 
connected with the history of the early Church, we 
must necessarily consult the Ancient Fathers — the his- 
torians and ecclesiastical writers of that period. The 
Catholic Church does not esteem them as inspired. They 
are held to be simple, but authentic witnesses to matters 
of fact, to wit: What were the doctrines held, and the 
observances kept by the Church in their day? If the 
Church held certain doctrines, and kept certain observ- 
ances, then these are held to be true; and as to the 
historical fact, the testimony of the Fathers is heard. 
In his debate with Bishop Purcell, Mr. Campbell said : 
" Among Protestants, the reason and authority of re- 
ligious belief and practice is, ' Thus saith the Lord.' 
It is not important to ascertain when any opinion or 
practice began, nor who introduced it ; but if it be not 
in the Bible, no matter how ancient it may be, it wants 
apostolic sanction, for the apostles sanctioned only what 
was written and ordained before their death. St. Cle- 
ment and St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus, and all the 
other Saints in the Roman Calendar, were born too late 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



29 



to sanction any article of faith or morals by their vote." 
(Debate, 277.) 

That the saints were born too late to sanction any 
article of faith by their vote, he is right, provided he 
means to say that they had no right to create and make 
new additions to the law, and therefore could exercise 
no legislative power as to matters of faith or morals. 

But in his debate with Mr. Rice, some years later, 
in speaking of the Greek and Latin Fathers as vision- 
aries, mystics, and fond of old wives' fables, he says : 

But I regard them as faithful witnesses of facts. I 
receive their testimony as honest men." (C. & R.'s De- 
bate, 163.) And when speaking upon the proposition 
that Christian baptism is for the remission of past 
sins," he quotes extensively from the Fathers, and says, 
among other things, " If neither the Bible, nor the 
Confession, nor the Greek and Latin Fathers are to be 
understood nor believed when affirming that baptism is 
for the remission of sins, what kind of evidence could 
satisfy him?" (D. 456.) And Mr. Rice is equally 
careful to call up the authority of the Ancient Fathers, 
when they are on his side of the question. In the debate 
regarding the baptism of infants, he says : 

For let it be distinctly understood, I appeal to the 
early Christian Fathers, not for their opinions, but I 
call them up as witnesses to a matter of fact, viz., that 
in their day, and so far as they know to the days of the 
apostles, the baptism of infants was universally prac- 
tised." (D. 406.) 

I could not but remark the gratification shown by each 
debater when he found himself in company with these 
" visionaries and mystics." Under such circumstances 
he failed not to breathe freer and deeper." 



30 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



Of the rules to he observed in consulting the Fathers. 

The question whether a certain doctrine was held or 
a certain observance kept by the Ancient Church, is sim- 
ply a question of fact, and can be the subject of historical 
examination and proof. If the Ancient Church held a 
certain doctrine, is that fact evidence that the doctrine 
is true? If the infallibility of the Church is conceded, 
there can be no doubt; but if that be disputed, the great 
difficulty of introducing such a doctrine into the Church, 
under the received maxims she did then hold, and the 
vigilance, sincerity, and means of detection then exist- 
ing, is certainly a most powerful and decisive proof with 
the Christian who admits that the Church started right. 

Protestant writers, in defending Christianity, assume 
the ground taken by Dr. Paley, when he says : 

" The success of a religion founded upon a miraculous 
history, shows the credit which was given to the history ; 
and this credit, under the circumstances in which it was 
given — i. e., by persons capable of knowing the truth, 
and interested to inquire after it — is evidence of the 
reality of the history, and, by consequence, of the truth 
of the religion." (Ev. of Chr.) 

The learned Divine was right. The credit given to 
such a story by such persons is evidence of its truth. 
Applying the same correct principle to the case in hand, 
it would seem to be true that the success of certain doc- 
trines and observances in the early Church shows the 
credit that was given to them ; and this credit, under 
the circumstances in which it was given — i. e., by per- 
sons not only capable of knowing the truth, but who did 
know it (because first well instructed), and interested 
to preserve it, and also vigilant in doing so — is evidence 
of the reality and truth of this miraculous history in 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



31 



the first instance, then, after they did believe it, they 
were to be more interested in inquiring into and pre- 
serving the true faith as delivered. 

Concluding remarks of this chapter. 

The principle of acknowledging the authority of the 
apostolical traditions, both unwritten and written, was 
the faith of the ancient church ; but the church was care- 
ful not to admit everything that might claim to be tra- 
dition. That the church was careful to admit only true 
traditions seems clear, and that the Scriptures were used 
as well as other proofs to show what were apostoHcal 
traditions, is no doubt true. But that a tradition was 
rejected simply because it differed from, while it did 
not contradict the Scriptures, could only be done in so 
far as they were alleged to be contradictory. Mere dif- 
ference may not constitute contradition. Every contra- 
diction is a difference; but every difference is not a 
contradiction. If additional facts be preserved by tradi- 
tion, these may not contradict the Scriptures, any more 
than the additional facts stated by St. Luke, contradict 
the Gospel of St. ]\Iatthew. It was only upon the ground 
that these additional facts were preserved by tradition, 
that its authority was admitted by the ancient church. 
There could have been no satisfactory reason but this. 

It was by tradition that the Scriptures were attested, 
as a single extract from Origen will show: 

" As I have learned by tradition regarding the four 
gospels, which are the only disputed ones in the church 
of God which is under heaven — that the first was writ- 
ten," etc. (T. iii, Com. in Alatt. p. 440. Euseb. H. i 
vi., c. 25.) 

The Catholic Church has never admitted, or contended 
that she must receive as apostolical traditions all that may 



32 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



be sought to be put upon her, as such; but she has been 
exceedingly careful not to admit any but such as were 
well attested by the church in all ages, and that she has 
always used both the unwritten and written law, to am- 
plify and interpret one another. She has ever held it 
to be alike her duty to reject spurious traditions, as well 
as spurious Scriptures. The traditions of the apostles 
are not at present merely oral, nor were they- communi- 
cated from former ages by word of mouth only, but 
were reduced to writing soon after the days of the 
apostles ; and are found in the testimony of the Fathers, 
and in the decisions of the Church. 

The learned Protestant Bishop Montague says : 
There are hundreds of particulars which have been 
instituted by God in point of religion, commanded and 
used by the Church, of which we own that the Scripture 
delivers or teaches no such thing." (P. 396. Cited by 
Demetrius A. Galitzin, in A letter to a Protestant 
friend on the holy Scriptures," published by F. Lucas, 
Jr., Baltimore.) 

I could never find the authority in the New Testament 
for keeping the first, instead of the seventh day of the 
week as a sabbath. The language of the Old Law is 
most explicit that the seventh day shall be kept. And 
not only is the language definite and certain, but the 
reason why God ordained that specified day is given; 
i. e., that the Creator himself rested on the seventh, and 
blessed the seventh day. (Ex. xx, 8-1 1.) To say, in 
the face of so clear a provision, that the observance of 
any other day of the week, is a compliance with the 
law, is to indulge a hazardous latitude with the explicit 
language of the lawgiver. But tradition informs us that 
the first was substituted for the seventh day of the 



THE LAW OF CHRIST 



33 



week, by the apostles, in honor of our Lord's glorious 
resurrection. 

It has been often objected against the traditions of the 
Church, that our Lord told the Scribes and Pharisees 
that they had made void the law of God by their tradi- 
tions. (Matt. XV.) 

Our Lord certainly did condemn certain specified tra- 
ditions ; but how this condemnation of particular tradi- 
tions can be construed into a general condemnation of all 
traditions, is certainly not obvious. If our Saviour had 
intended a general condemnation of all tradition as a 
medium of transmission, He would not have used lan- 
guage specially confined to a particular class of traditions 
then in existence. As Christ expressly confined His 
condemnation to one class of tradition, by what rule 
of rational construction can we make that general, which 
He chose only to make special? To confine expressly 
a provision of law to specified cases, is to exclude the 
idea of generality. When a lawgiver specifies a single 
error, and denounces that, the denunciation cannot be 
extended to other matters not designated. 



CHAPTER II 



OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF CHRIST 

The organization of the visible Church must follow from 
the character of Christ as a lawgiver. 

If we concede that Christ was a lawgiver, then we 
must concede that He would necessarily organize His 
followers into a visible association. And as He was 
the sole founder of the system, He would naturally es- 
tablish a visible kingdom. All lawgivers intend their 
laws to govern associated, not dispersed men. And 
each code of law is intended to govern one association 
only. When a just legislator founds a system, he al- 
ways has in his eye the adaptation of his government 
to the condition of men united. For it is only in that 
state that men can be governed. And if Christ made 
a law to be practically obeyed by men on earth, he must 
have instituted a government HERE; and this govern- 
ment could not exist without a visible association of the 
parties governed. Assuming that Christ was a Law- 
maker, the organization of the visible church must log- 
ically flow from that character. It would seem equally 
clear that if He did organize a visible association of 
men called a Church, He must have intended that there 
should exist in this association perfect unity of faith. 

The end and purpose of union is rightful success. 

It must be obvious that no great object is ever under- 
taken without the union of numbers. From a small 

34 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



35 



village debating society, through every grade of organi- 
zation, up to the mightiest civil government on earth, 
the first end to be secured is union of effort. 

If Christ intended the success of His system, He must 
have left sufficient means to attain it. If men who pre- 
tend to preach the same system of religion differ widely 
among themselves regarding what the system is, it at 
once produces confusion among all parties, both the 
teachers and the persons taught. It affords one of the 
most obvious and ready arguments against the truth of 
a system. The success of a mutilated or corrupted 
form of Christianity was no part of the Divine intention. 
Christ designed only the success of the system as He 
established it. And to secure this success, continued 
unity in the same faith once delivered, was indispen- 
sable. 

I was myself for many years a Deist, and remember 
the weight the argument drawn from the divisions among 
Christians had with me, and how often I heard it in the 
mouths of all sceptics. At that time I knew nothing of 
the Catholic system, and nothing of the grounds upon 
which it assumed to rest. Had I been well informed in 
regard to it, I do not think I should ever have had much 
difficulty in believing the system of Christianity to be 
rrue. 

The differences and consequent divisions among pro- 
fessed Christians have made more infidels than all other 
causes combined. If the diversity of views regarding 
different systems of religion found among mankind have 
the practical effect of retarding the progress of. Chris- 
tianity in the world, how much greater must be the effect 
of the divisions among those who profess the same sys- 
tem ! Most men who are infidels, neglect or refuse to 
investigate. They satisfy themselves by the easy and 



36 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



offhand reflection that there must be something radically 
wrong in Christianity itself, something not to be under- 
stood, or else the professors of the system would agree 
as to what it is. 

The Mohammedan says to the Christian : " First 
agree among yourselves as to what your religion is, and 
when you have done that, then come to me. If you, 
who have studied this matter all your lives, do not un- 
derstand it, how can you expect me to do so? You 
Christians preach so many different doctrines, and are 
split up and divided into so many parties, that you do 
not know yourselves what is right, and you are not, 
therefore, capable of instructing me." 

The force of this reasoning is very readily appre- 
hended by even ordinary minds, and makes a deep im- 
pression upon those persons who are naturally inclined 
to doubt. We unhesitatingly, and at once, draw the 
easy and ready conclusion, that there must be some 
great defect in a system that has provided no practical 
means of securing unity of faith, and about which there 
exists so wide a difference of opinion among those who 
profess both to believe and to understand it. 

There is much more infidelity in the world than most 
teachers of Christianity believe. 

Many men who will very readily admit to a known 
teacher of religion that they believe the system, for 
the purpose of avoiding an argument, because they care 
nothing about the system itself, are yet in a state either 
of great doubt or confirmed infidelity. Most of the 
editors of our daily and weekly political and literary 
papers write beautiful articles in praise of Christianity, 
while very few of them believe in it with any confiding 
faith. 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



37 



This infidelity as a general thing, exists even without 
any systematic effort on the part of infidels to propa- 
gate their views. You may go into many houses, where 
you will find the Bible, and no infidel works; and yet 
most of the family will be infidels or sceptics, and show 
it most conclusively by their acts. I was a Deist before 
I read a work upon the subject; and this extended dif- 
fusion throughout society of unbelief is mainly owing 
to the divisions and disputes among Christians. 

I speak of the practical effect of these divisions, and 
not of the effect they should have, in right reason, upon 
the minds of men. But the difficulty lies here. Most 
men are prone, from motives of convenience, or feelings 
of indolence, or present interest, to judge of things per- 
taining to the future by some summary method. They 
like to judge of such things in one mass, and dispose of 
them in the same way. You must first almost convince 
them of the truth of a system, before you can excite 
them to investigation. 

Of the Scriptural proofs that Christ did organise such 
an institution, and contemplate such unity. 

If we pass from this train of reasoning to the positive 
testimony of Scripture, we shall find the position most 
clearly sustained. Throughout the New Testament, 
when the general terms " the Church " are used, without 
being qualified by other words, or without being used in 
such a connection as to show a limited meaning, it is 
applied to the one visible universal church. 

In St. Matthew's Gospel Christ says: "Tell the 
church " — " if he will not hear the church upon 
this rock I will build my church." In the third chap- 
ter of St. Paul's first epistle to Timothy, the church he 
speaks of is plainly the visible church. In the second 



38 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



chapter of Isaiah, speaking of the future church, we 
find the prophet using these words : 

" And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the 
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in 
the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the 
hills, and all nations shall flow into it. And many peo- 
ple shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the 
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; 
and he will teach us of his ways, and we shall walk in 
his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and 
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem/' 

Here the church is most beautifully compared to a 
house on the top of the mountains, exalted above the 
hills. There is surely nothing contemplated in this sub- 
lime passage but a visible church, in which " the Lord 
will teach us of his ways," and in which we will walk 
in his paths." Connect this with the fourteenth verse 
of the fifth chapter of Matthew, where Christ says to 
His apostles : " Ye are the light of the world. A city 
set on a hill cannot be hid." 

That perfect unity in this visible organization was in- 
tended by Christ, not only follows from the reason given, 
but it is shown by the written word, by the testimony 
of the Church in all ages, and by the admissions of Pro- 
testant writers themselves. 

" And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ; 
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, 
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 
X, i6.) 

" There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are 
called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, 
one baptism." (Eph. iv, 4, 5.) 

And he is the head of the body, the church." (Colos. 
i, 18.) 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



39 



" The house of God, which is the church of the Hving 
God" (i Tim. iii, 15.) 

No comments could add anything to the force of the 
extract from St. John : There shall be one fold, and 
one shepherd." And St. Paul says : " There is one 
body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism." All these are closely connected in the same 
sentence, and have the same power: and as there can 
be no divisions in the one spirit, one hope, one Lord, 
one faith, one baptism," neither can there be in the 
"one body" (the church), but there must be the most 
perfect unity in all, or in none. Again, Christ is said 
to be " the head of the body, the church," and if the 
head be not divided, can the body be ? And Christ Him- 
self laid down the general principle, that a kingdom 
divided against itself cannot stand ; " and the church of 
Christ is his Kingdom. (Dan. ii, 44; Luke i, 33.) The 
whole spirit of the system contemplates union. The 
whole drift of the New Testament seems to contemplate 
nothing less. 

And for what purpose would disunion be desirable? 
What good in proportion to the evil, could be accom- 
plished by it? It is true, I have sometimes heard it 
suggested in private argument, that the divisions in 
Christendom were productive of good. They created a 
sort of rivalship among the different parties, that natur- 
ally led to more industry, more research, and more 
activity, and consequently more was done. But such 
a state of things seems never to have been contemplated 
by the system. It was expected that Christians would 
do their duty from love of the cause, without being 
driven to it by party bitterness. Divisions, for a time, 
may produce more activity and more exertion. But they 
produce more prejudice, more bitterness, and more 



40 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



hatred; and this activity and this exertion are turned, 
not so much against the common adversary as against 
each other. Mutiny in an army does not conquer the 
enemy. 

Extracts from Protestant writers. 

I will now make a few quotations from Protestant 
writers, to show the importance they attach to the union 
of the visible church, 

" I agree with my friend Mr. C," says Mr. Rice, 
" that the union of all the disciples of Christ is an object 
greatly to be desired. I go for Christian union upon 
Scriptural principles as zealously as he, and so do evan- 
gelical denominations generally, so far as I know. We 
differ not concerning the importance of the object, but 
concerning the proper method of securing it." 

Concerning Christian Union, let me repeat, we are 
all most decidedly in favor of it. What is the union of 
which the apostle speaks? It is the unity of the faith, 
and of the knowledge of the Son of God." (Campbell 
and Rice's Debate, 770, 780.) 

The writings of Mr. Campbell abound with many un- 
answerable arguments for union. In his debate with 
Mr. Rice, there are many fine bursts of eloquence upon 
this theme, only a few of which can be inserted here. 

In this sectarian and schismatic age," says Mr. 
Campbell, " we have assembled for the purpose of dis- 
covering, if possible, the roots of discord and the seeds 
of schism, which have unhappily alienated and estranged 
us from each other, that we may, peradventure, find 
some remedy for those wounds and grievances which 
have so disgraced our holy faith, marred its beauty, and 
impeded its progress in the world." 

" But, my fellow-citizens, there is one point that can- 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



41 



not be too deeply impressed upon your minds — that the 
union of Christians is essential to the conversion of the 
world, both at home and abroad." 

''What is the state of the case? We shall see that 
Christendom is at present in a distracted, agitated, dis- 
turbed condition, cut up or frittered down into sects and 
parties innumerable, wholly unwarranted by right reason, 
pure religion, the Bible — the God of the Bible. Before 
the high, and holy, and puissant intelligences of earth 
and heaven, this state of things is most intolerable." 
(Id. 230, 783, 904.) 

Extract from a Catholic writer. 

1 shall close this chapter with the following beautiful 
extract from an eminent living Catholic writer, as it ex- 
presses my own views in language far more beautiful 
and appropriate th^n any I could select myself: 

" Nothing can be more beautiful in the conception of 
a Christian Church, than a perfect unity of belief. Such 
an idea is beautiful to the imagination, because it is the 
consecration of the first and most essential principles, 
whereon society is based. For the social union tends 
to merge the feelings of each individual in the general 
mass, and leads him to embrace mankind rather than 
individual men. And in like manner does the principle 
of religious unity tend to excite your love towards them, 
no longer as brothers in the flesh, but as connected with 
you by a hoHer and. diviner bond, and assists towards 
inspiring every member of the community with all that 
can be reciprocally felt, in the nearest ties and connec- 
tions of our nature. And if the very idea of a re- 
public, or government, in which men were united by 
such real or ideal bonds, as that they fought side by 
side, or contributed towards the common weal, did seem 
6 



42 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



to them of old so beautiful and heavenly, that the very 
conception of such a state, embodied under outward 
symbols, should have been deified and worshipped, what 
shall we say of that sacred union which holds men to- 
gether, not merely as constituents of a community, but 
as members of one mystical body ; not cemented together 
by the sense of mutual want, or strung one unto the 
other by the ties of the flesh, or the interests of the 
world, but firmly united by the headship of One, in 
whom the sublimest thought reposes, as in its proper 
sphere, and inly communicating through the circulation 
of vital influences, passing from one unto the other ; not 
contributing to the common stock the gifts or qualities 
of earth, but the fairest virtues, the most precious orna- 
ments of our nature ; not directed in their views to- 
wards a wordly aggrandizement or a passing glory, nor 
linked in a battle-field by a bond of hatred against a 
human foe, but looking upwards for their trophies and 
rewards to the peaceful smile of heaven, after they shall 
have contended together in the gentle strife of mutual 
and universal love. 

" Then add the reflection, how this influence stretches 
beyond the reach of any other known sentiment among 
mankind ; for, outstripping all the motives of sympathy 
among men of different countries, it flies over mountains, 
and seas, and oceans, and puts into the mouths of na- 
tions the most remote, and the most dissimilar, one 
canticle of praise, and into their minds one symbol of 
belief, and into their hearts one sentiment of charity. 
And, thus professing alike, they kneel in countless multi- 
tudes before one altar, and from the soul of each pro- 
ceeds the golden chain which joins them unto it, which 
God joms unto the rest, which He holdeth in His hand, 
for in Him is the center towards which the faith of 



CHURCH IS VISIBLE 



43 



all converges, and in His truth it is blended into uni- 
formity and oneness of thought. Surely this is the idea 
which you would wish to conceive, of the efficacy and 
of the effects of that rule, which has been given by God, 
to produce unity of belief. 

But then also is this unity of faith subservient to 
another great end, to the evidence of our Blessed Sav- 
iour's true religion. For He was pleased to declare 
that the unity observed among His followers should be 
among the strongest evidences of His heavenly mission. 
' And not for them only,' He exclaimed, ' do I pray, but 
for them also, who, through their word, shall believe in 
me; that they all may be one, as the Father in me, and 
I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world 
may believe that thou hast sent me.' And that this 
unity is not merely of the heart, through love, but also 
of the mind, in faith. His blessed apostle hath abundantly 
declared. For according to -him, if we wish to walk 
worthy of the vocation wherein we have been called, it 
must be not only by ' humility, and mildness, and pa- 
tience, supporting one another in charity,' but we must 
be ' careful to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond 
of peace,' so as to be ' one body ' as well as ' one spirit ' 
and to have ' one faith ' as much as ' one Lord and one 
baptism.' 

Not surely that charity, the beautiful and the perfect, 
steps not beyond the circumscribing line of religious 
unity, or that her genial influences, like a flower's sweet 
odor, spread not abroad beyond the plant which first 
produces it; but universal as must be our love of men, 
this will be ever its noblest exercise, to wish and to 
strive that all be brought to that closer union and unity 
which is in and through faith." (Dr. Wiseman, Moor- 
field Lectures, 77.) 



CHAPTER III 



THE GOVERNING POWER OF THE CHURCH 

That a visible association of men cannot continue to exist 
without government. 

As Christ did organize His followers into a visible 
body of men, upon certain joint terms common to the 
association, and with the intent to accomplish a joint 
purpose, it would seem to follow that some sort of gov- 
ernment must have been instituted to keep the organiza- 
tion together- It may be safely assumed as a correct 
principle, that any and all kinds of organizations among 
men must come together for some common end, upon 
some terms ; and that there must, of necessity, be some 
power in the association, placed somewhere, to settle 
disputes and questions respecting these terms. In other 
words, there must be government in every association 
of men, to which a law is given. 

This necessity exists in all associations, and must, 
therefore, exist in the Church of Christ, as well as in all 
other collective bodies of men. 

Since it is the right and duty of the superior to govern 
the inferior, and the correlative duty of the inferior to 
obey, that each may be kept in his proper sphere, and 
that order may exist, it follows that such government 
ought to possess the requisite powers to accomplish these 
ends. Order must exist in the system of Infinite Wis- 
dom, and in everything proposed by Him to us. If, 
then, Christ formed a visible church. He must have given 

44 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 45 



it the principles essential to its continued existence. We 
cannot upon principles of reason or experience, conceive 
of a visible Church without government. 

Christ must have placed the governing power somewhere 
in the Church. 

If, then, Christ instituted any government in His 
church. He must have placed the governing power 
somewhere ; either in the hands of a certain order of 
men, or in the hands of one man, or in the church at 
large. 

It is a fundamental principle, that whatever power 
has the right to found a government at all, has a right 
to say in whose hands the governing power shall be 
placed. Civil governments are constituted by men, who, 
in the beautiful language of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, are all created equal " and the just powers 
of civil government are immediately derived from the 
" consent of the governed," though mediately from God. 

The people of the United States had the political right, 
in forming their Constitution, to frame their govern- 
ment in any shape they pleased; and they could have 
united, as they separated, the legislative, executive, and 
judicial powers. But with reference to the Christian 
government, it may be said, that while it is derived, not 
from the consent of the parties to be governed, but from 
Christ alone, it still possesses certain great, leading, and 
essential features, common to every system of law, in- 
tended for, and adapted to, the government of mere men. 

When a mere fallible power founds a government, it 
would be very unwise to attempt to frame a complete 
and full system of laws in advance, and thus to leave 
out the legislative power; for the plain and simple 
reason, that the founder of the government could not fore- 



46 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



see all the circumstances that might exist in the future, 
requiring an enlargement or modification of his code. 
Hence the fundamental or constitutional provisions of 
civil governments are, from their nature, confined to 
the more general principles of the system. But it is 
rational to suppose that an Infallible Legislator should, 
at some period, form a full and complete system of laws, 
to operate through all coming time. Christ did form a 
new code of law at the beginning of the new dispensa- 
tion, embracing all the necessarily permanent portions 
of the system, and leaving no legislative power in the 
Church, except as to matters of discipline, in reference 
to which laws could not have been well made at the 
beginning, since changing circumstances might require a 
change in these mere disciplinary regulations. 

The other indispensable powers of government — the 
executive and judicial — could not, in the very nature 
and reason of the powers themselves, have been exer- 
cised in advance. Laws are rightfully prescribed (which 
means both to make and publish) in advance of the 
commission of crimes: commands must be given before 
they can be obeyed or violated. But there must be a 
violation of law, before the judicial power is required 
to act; and this power must be exercised as often as 
cases may require, and must, therefore, continue in 
operation, so long as the Church itself shall exist in the 
world. The same may be said of the executive power. 
The occasion must arise before it is required to be used. 

If these views be correct, it follows that one of two 
things must be true; either that Christ visibly presides 
on earth to exercise the judicial and executive powers 
of the Church, or He has delegated these necessary pow- 
ers to others, to be exercised by them as His agents or 
officers. Again it follows that if Christ delegated this 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



authority to others, He must have confided it to one 
man, to an order of men, or to the .whole Church col- 
lectively. In the latter case, each member of the Church 
would have equal power, as a part of the whole. 

A Democracy is a government in which the governing 
power is placed in the people; and a pure Democracy, 
is where the people meet themselves in council, and make 
the laws. A representative Democracy, is where the 
people make and administer the laws through their 
agents. Now the Christian government is not a Democ- 
racy of either kind. It does not derive its just powers 
from the consent of the governed, nor is it in any man- 
ner founded by them. It is called a " Kingdom," not a 
Democracy. Christ was the sole founder of the system, 
and had the right to institute it in such form as seemed 
to Him best. 

As the Church was intended for one united body, to 
extend undivided over the whole earth, and to exist for 
all coming time, the idea of placing the governing power 
in the hands of all the members, would seem incon- 
sistent with the principles of government. That a law- 
giver, supreme in virtue of His own nature, should 
promulgate a positive and fixed law for the govern- 
ment of a certain association of men, and at the same 
time confide the governing power to all the members, 
would seem evidently inconsistent with His rights as the 
founder of the institution, and incompatible with the end 
intended. 

We are, then, thrown upon the other two positions, 
that Christ either delegated the governing power in the 
Church to one man, or to an order of men. It could not, 
I think, be supposed that Christ would create but one 
office in His Church, as one office would be clearly in- 
sufficient for the duties to be performed. It would, 



48 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



therefore, seem far more reasonable that our Lord would 
create several offices, in due subordination to each 
other, and confide the government of His Church to 
them. 

It may be proper to remark that the officers of any 
government among men, only exercise delegated author- 
ity. The proper and only source from which this power 
flows, is the rightful founder of the government. The 
officer acts, not for himself, but he represents the sover- 
eign power of the government, whatever that may be. 
If the people institute a civil government, then, accord- 
ing to the theory of that government, the sovereign 
power resides in them, in their collective capacity. And 
for the same reason, if Christ instituted any government 
among men, the sovereignty of the institution resides in 
Him, and every officer of such government must repre- 
sent Him and Him only. It would, therefore, seem to 
follow, that, in delegating the necessary powers to gov- 
ern the Church, it would be very unphilosophical to sup- 
pose that Christ would confide these powers to each and 
every member of the association — the very parties, and 
the only parties to be governed. 

It then seems to me clear, that as Christ was a law- 
giver, He must have organized the church — that when 
organized, government in the church became inevitable 
— that this government, to be government at all, must 
be supreme, and have jurisdiction over all questions aris- 
ing under the law — and that as Christ does not visibly 
exercise these powers on earth, He must, of necessity, 
have delegated them to others, who act as His agents. 

If the Church was intended by Christ to exist for a 
greater period of time than the lives of those to whom 
the power to govern the church was originally given, 
there must be a succession of officers, or there must be 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



49 



an end of the institution. It is so in all governments. 
The officers die — while the offices live on. 

A civil government most usually exists for several 
centuries, and the Christian government is intended to 
continue to the end of time. If certain permanent offices 
are necessary to the existence of the church, then when 
one incumbent dies, another must come to fill the posi- 
tion, and this constitutes succession. So long as the 
officer must die, and the office must exist, so long the 
principle of succession must be acted upon. There is 
no other mode of continuing the institution. This is 
the case in all political governments, and must be so 
in all governments intended for men, where the offices are 
to be filled by men. 

Whatever government Christ did adopt for His 
Church, must have been consistent with human nature. 
He could not be supposed to form a government for 
men, that would only answer for some other race of 
beings. Any government instituted by Christ must pos- 
sess all the elements of a perfect system, one part having 
a due dependence upon another, so as to constitute a 
fitness and harmony in all its parts, that the combined 
whole may be practical, simple and efficient. 

The true office of reason. 

It must be conceded that while Christ never intended 
to suppress reason, the noblest attribute of man, He 
did intend to confine it within its legitimate hmits, and 
to its appropriate objects. Like every other attribute 
belonging to inferior beings, it must be subject to rules 
and restrictions. It could not, therefore, be a true' guide 
in reference to everything, and under all circumstances. 
But, while it is limited and restrained, it must be com- 
petent within those limits. And though all truth must 



50 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



be strictly consistent and reasonable in itself, portions of 
it must, in the nature of things, be above the powers of 
limited reason. 

It would seem to be a just conclusion, that every sys- 
tem of truth must possess some plain principles, readily 
comprehended by the fair exercise of reason, and some 
more complex and difficult, either entirely beyond the 
reach of reason, or requiring the utmost exertion of its 
power. 

The fair exercise of reason would lead us to admit 
that in a supernatural system, there would be mysteries 
necessarily above the comprehension of reason. By the 
exercise of reason we can examine the proofs of Chris- 
tianity, because these are external matters, coming legiti- 
mately within the jurisdiction of reason. From these 
proofs we can know the character of Christ; and from 
His Word we can ascertain the plain facts and prin- 
ciples of the system ; and these will lead us to the insti- 
tution founded by Him as the competent guide of all, 
in all things, mysteries included. 

The laws of nature have been open to the observation 
of mankind from the beginning; and while we can, and 
do know the plain and more familiar laws of nature, so 
that we can pronounce with certainty that a particular 
effect or event, happening under a given state of cir- 
cumstances, was a clear violation or suspension of these 
laws ; yet we do not know, and may never know, all the 
laws of nature, and could not, therefore, be competent 
to speak decisively as to the true character of some 
events that have occurred, or that may hereafter occur. 

The first principles of the science of mathematics, the 
most certain of all the sciences, are so simple that they 
can be readily understood by the infantile mind; yet the 
higher problems, which are mathematically demonstrable, 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



51 



and are, therefore, equally true, and equally capable of 
being conclusively shown to be so, are so complex that 
it requires the utmost effort of the best intellects to un- 
derstand them. And we may well suppose that there are 
mathematical truths that never will be known to man. 
So, the first principles of the science of civil govern- 
ment are simple, and easily understood, while there are 
others exceedingly difficult of practical application. The 
same observations are applicable to most, if not to all, 
the sciences. If it were not so, the powers and works 
of the great Creator would be limited to the entire 
comprehension of reason, and the creature would be 
equal, at least in intelligence, to his Creator. 

The same inseparable incidents must belong to Chris- 
tianity. Many of its truths are plain, simple, and easily 
understood, while some are difficult, and hard to be under- 
stood. To establish the truth of the system itself, the ap- 
peal must, in the first instance, be made to reason in some 
form. We can only predicate our faith upon testimony, 
and this must be fairly tested by reason, founded upon 
experience, before we can believe it. Now, among the 
matters that can be best known to man, is the true 
character of human testimony. Men all possess the 
same essential nature, and are in constant daily associa- 
tion and intercourse with each other; and, therefore, 
must be held competent to estimate the force and value 
of the evidence given by themselves. The gifted and 
accomplished young Judge Jones, upon his deathbed, 
used this language : " I have never been an infidel. I 
had examined the positive evidences for Christianity, 
and they greatly preponderated in favor of its truth; 
and, taken in connection with its appropriate fitness to 
man's wants and nature, it was, as a lawyer would 
say, a plain case upon the face of the papers." And 



52 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



Dr. Johnson has said that no honest man could be a 
Deist, " after a fair examination of the proofs of Chris- 
tianity." (Boswell.) 

Among the matters that must be within the legitimate 
sphere of reason, and that must be well known and 
understood, are the plain, practical and luminous prin- 
ciples of government — those foundations upon which 
society itself is based. Men have been under govern- 
ment, in some form, from the earliest times, and must, 
therefore, be competent to understand the plain princi- 
ples of that science, if there be any such in the system. 
Proceeding upon this ground, it has been my object to 
show the considerations, drawn from reason and ex- 
perience, that naturally led me to form some idea of the 
leading and most apparent features of that government 
actually instituted by Christ. For it was plain to my 
understanding, that while governments must differ from 
each other in those respects that constitute them diifer- 
ent governments, they must agree in those fundamental 
respects that constitute government itself. 

The testimony of Christ as to the governing power of 
the Church. 

In the last verses of Matthew's Gospel, before our 
Lord ascended into Heaven, and while he was with the 
eleven disciples in a mountain in Galilee, He said unto 
them : 

" All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth. 
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world." 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



53 



The first part of this wide commission is, " Go — teach 
all nations." 

This commission was first addressed to the eleven 
disciples, and constituted the office of teacher. They 
were to teach the nations to observe all things that 
Christ had commanded them to observe. 

This' right to teach is the most essential attribute 
bestowed upon the governing power in the Church. 
In the nature of mere civil government, as I have 
attempted to show in a previous chapter, the legislator 
could not rightfully require faith in the justice of his 
laws, for he would require a belief in what might be a 
falsehood. But in a government constituted by Christ, 
it is reasonable that faith should be required, as well as 
simple compliance in acts ; for obedience will be more 
perfect when we believe in the unquestioned justice of 
a law; and Christ intended to create a closer union 
among the members of His church than exists among 
the citizens or subjects of a civil government, and faith 
was necessary for this purpose. If we obey a law be- 
cause we are forced to do so, whether we think it just 
or unjust, we render but a reluctant and unwilling obedi- 
ence. This is not the kind of obedience that an infinite 
lawgiver would require. 

Faith, then, being required, the necessity of a power 
to teach becomes evident. This commission plainly dis- 
tinguishes between two separate and distinct classes of 
men — teachers and persons taught; for while one class 
is commanded to " teach," the other class is commanded 
to " observe." In the reason and nature of things, 
there could not exist teachers without persons to be 
taught. The two classes must exist, or there could be 
no employment for either. The only command here 



54 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



given to the eleven was to " teach and baptize " — 
the nations were to observe." The commission was 
addressed to them as teachers, constituting a separate 
and distinct class of men, to whom the power to teach 
and baptize was given; and it was only as teachers, 
and in the duties as such, that Christ promised to be 
" with them to the end of the world." Christ first 
tells them, Go teach," etc., and then in the same sen- 
tence immediately adds, " and lo, I am with you," only 
connecting His promised assistance with their teaching. 

In the tenth chapter of St. Luke our Lord said to 
the seventy disciples, " He that heareth you, heareth 
me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me ; and he 
that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me." 

Testimony of St. Paid. 

St. Paul, in the tenth chapter of his Epistle to the 
Romans, says : 

" How shall they call on him in whom they have not 
believed? and how shall they believe in him, of whom 
they have not heard? and how shall they hear without 
a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be 
sent?" 

It was clear that the preacher could not preach unless 
he was sent — that he could not send himself ; and it 
is equally clear that the party to hear and believe was 
not the preacher sent. In other words, there were two 
classes — teachers and persons taught. St. Paul does 
not here give us any statement as to the manner of 
sending preachers, or as to who sends them. These 
matters are stated in other epistles. 

The same apostle in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 
chapter 12, verses 28 and 29, says : 

" And God hath set some in the church, first apostles 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 55 



— secondarily prophets — thirdly teachers. Are all 
apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? 

This is explicit as to the fact that, in St. Paul's time, 
a certain order of men had the right to teach, and that 
all had not. 

St. Paul (Hebrews xiii, 7, 17) uses this clear and 
explicit language : 

Remember them which have the rule over you, who 
have spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith 
follow, considering the end of their conversation." 

" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit 
yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that 
must give an account, that they may do it with joy 
and not with grief : for that is unprofitable for you." 

It is difficult to conceive of language more explicit 
and more to the point than the foregoing extracts. 

St. Paul says to his Hebrew brethren " Remember, 
them which have the rule over you, who have spoken 
unto you the word of God, whose faith follow ; " that 
is, whose faith do you follow. He first tells them to 
remember them who have the rule over them, and then 
tells them how they are to remember them, and that 
is by following their faith. In the second extract he 
is equally emphatic. He first says, obey them that 
have the rule over you," and as if this was not suffi- 
ciently strong and clear, he adds, " and submit your- 
selves," and then gives them the reasons why they 
should obey and submit. 

Now the terms rule, obey, and submit, can mean 
nothing in this connection but government and obedience. 
The word rule here means government; and to govern 
is to " control the will and actions of others, either 
by arbitrary power and authority, or by established 
laws." The rule or government which those orders 



56 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



had over the Church, was the power to control the will 
and actions by established laws. The word obey here 
means " to comply with the commands, orders, or in- 
structions of a superior " ; and to submit is to be 
subject; to acquiesce in the authority of another." 

In the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
St. Paul speaks of a certain order of men, consisting 
of several grades — apostles, prophets, evangelists, 
teachers, and pastors — all given for certain specific 
purposes, namely : " for the perfecting of the saints, for 
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
of Christ," i. e. the Church; and the immediate end of 
this authoritative labor, this perfecting of the saints, this 
work of the ministry, this edifying of the Church, was, 
that the members of the church might " all come in the 
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of 
God " ; and this unity of faith and knowledge must be 
perfect, " unto the measure of the stature of the fulness 
of Christ " ; and the legitimate result or effect of this 
unity in this perfect knowledge of the Son of God is, 
that " we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and 
fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine," " but 
speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him 
in all things, which is the head, even Christ " ; so that 
every part of this body, the Church, might be fitly 
joined together and compacted " ; and thus, being fitly 
joined and compacted, the " effectual working of every 
part " might make " increase of the body," thus answer- 
ing the grayer of Christ for the unity of His followers, 
that the world might believe that the Father had sent 
Him. 

In this epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle tells us 
that there was a certain order of men given for certain 
purposes, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he tells 



GOVERNING POWER OE CHURCH 57 



us to follow the faith of those who have the rule over 
us," and these are they who have spoken unto us 
the word of God." 

The Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, were 
addressed to them in their capacity as Teachers. The 
whole drift, spirit, and language of these Epistles show 
that Timothy and Titus had " the rule " over their 
respective churches. 

The powers of government bestozved tipon the Apostolical 
Church, continuing. 

This was the process of governing the Church in 
the days of the apostles. There was a certain order 
of men that had the rule over the church. They taught, 
they ordained elders, they expelled heretics, and they, 
in a word, exercised all the powers necessary to govern 
the institution as it was then constituted. 

The question then arises w^hether this order of men 
had succession, and still exists in the church. There 
can be nothing more plain and palpable than this, that 
if Christ did organize any visible church, and institute 
any government for it, and, therefore, did create 
OFEICES to be filled by men, and these offices were 
intended to continue so long as the church itself should 
last, either the first incumbents were to live while the 
church existed, or there must be a succession of officers. 
It follows also that so long as the church remains 
unchanged, the successor must have the same powers 
as his predecessor ; for it is the office that gives power 
to the man, and not the man to the office. 

Christ organized and perfected the Christian gov- 
ernment, and made the permanent Christian code of 
laws for its guidance. The system came from Christ 
and His apostles possessing certain characteristics or 
6 



58 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



constituent principles. Either Christ intended to insti- 
tute some government in the Church, or He intended 
to organize no visible church at all. For I cannot con- 
ceive of a continuing visible Church, the pillar and 
ground of the truth, without government. If He did 
institute such government, He must have placed the 
/governing power somewhere in the Church; and, in 
doing this, He must have created certain offices, to 
which were given certain official powers ; and those 
offices were intended to be filled by men, so long as 
the association should continue to exist. If there were 
no offices in the church, how could there exist any gov- 
ernment? And how could offices exist without official 
povv^er? And how could official power exist equally 
in each and every member of the association? In such 
case, who would govern and who would obey? 

That He did create certain offices, is shown from 
the extracts already given, and from the language of 
St. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, where he speaks 
of " the office of a bishop " and " the office of a deacon " ; 
and the only question to determine is, whether those 
offices were intended to continue in the church while 
the church itself should last. If Christ did create cer- 
tain offices in the church, and there is no limitation 
as to the duration of the office, either by the mere 
temporary nature of the duty to be performed, or by 
the express words of the law creating the office, then 
the intent would seem to be plain, that the existence 
of the office would be commensurate with the existence 
of the system itself. 

The Constitution of the United States organized a gov- 
ernment. It is not stated in the instrument how long the 
system was intended to continue ; and yet it was intended 
to be perpetual, for the reason that no limit is given. 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



When a corporation is created, and no limit put to its 
existence, it must be held to be perpetual. 

By the Constitution, the executive power is vested in 
a president, and the judicial power in one supreme court, 
and such inferior courts as Congress may establish. 
It is not stated in express terms that the office of 
president shall exist so long as the Constitution endures ; 
and yet this is the palpable intent, because the office 
is created as a part of the system, and must necessarily 
continue so long as the government itself shall last. 

Knowledge cannot be inherited, but must be acquired, 
and each succeeding generation must be taught as was 
the preceding one. For this reason the duty of teach- 
ing is perpetual, because the system to be taught is so. 
The power to teach was not personal to the apostles. 

That the commission constituted the authority of the 
apostles, and empowered and required them to teach 
all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them to 
observe, cannot be disputed. The only question is, 
whether the power thereby conferred was a power per- 
sonal to them, and therefore temporary. If it gives 
no authority but to the apostles, upon whom it was 
supposed to be alone conferred, there could be no suc- 
cessors under this commission, and no authority to teach 
after the deaths of those to whom it was first given. 

The command to teach, and the promise, Lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world," are 
so closely connected together, that the existence of the 
one must be commensurate with the existence of the 
other. If Christ then commanded the apostles and their 
successors to teach. He equally promised to be" with 
them " alway, even unto the end of the world " ; and He 
does not promise to be with them, any longer than they 
have authority to teach. If this^ promise extends to 



6o GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



the successors of the apostles, the command to teach 
does also. 

The power to' baptize is also given in this commission, 
and forms a portion of the mass of inseparable powers 
bestowed upon the apostles as teachers. The power 
to teach is first given, and then the power to baptize 
those taught, which is only carrying out the power 
to teach, and forming a part of it; and, therefore, the 
power to teach and baptize must stand or fall together. 
If, therefore, the power to teach did not come down 
to the successors of the apostles, in virtue of the com- 
mission, the power to baptize did not. Thus, in so 
far as the commission is concerned, there is no power in 
the Church, since the days of the apostles, either to 
teach or baptize ; and we must look to other portions 
of the Word of God for such authority, if it exist in 
the visible church at all. 

The fact that the larger portion of the instructions 
given by our Saviour was given in terms personal to 
the apostles, is evident; and the fact that these instruc- 
tions are applicable to us, unless they are limited, either 
by express words or by the nature of the command itself, 
is equally clear. Thus, for instance, the command given 
to the eleven to tarry in Jerusalem until the descent 
of the Holy Spirit, does not apply to us, for the com- 
mand was but temporary, and could not extend beyond 
the event mentioned as its limitation. 

The reason and truth of this rule will be apparent, 
I apprehend, upon a little reflection. Christ selected 
twelve apostles to be with Him during His ministry. 
They saw all His miracles — heard all His discourses, 
which were mostly given in terms personal to them, 
and received His last instructions, and saw Him ascend 
into heaven. The last thing He said to them was, Go 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



6i 



teach, etc., teaching them to observe all things whatso- 
ever I have commanded you." (To observe.) He had 
instructed them personally for more than three years, 
and now He commands them to teach others to observe 
that which He had previously commanded them to ob- 
serve. This commission applied the teachings of Christ, 
given in terms personal to the apostles, also to their 
successors. They were commanded to tarry in Jerusa- 
lem until they were endowed with power from on high." 
When so endowed, they were to commence teaching. 
The date, therefore, when the commission was to take 
effect, was the day of Pentecost. Whatsoever Christ 
had, previous to that day, commanded them to do, they 
were to teach others to observe. Now, on that day, 
one of the things Christ had previously commanded the 
eleven to do, was to " teach all things whatsoever he 
had commanded them " ; and this made it their duty 
to teach others to teach what they had been themselves 
commanded to teach. In other words, the phrase " all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you," would em- 
brace all commands given before the time when this 
command was to be put in force, and would include 
in the words " all things whatsoever " the command " Go 
teach." 

The phrase " all things whatsoever " is exceedingly 
general, and would include all commands. But accord- 
ing to the fifth rule of construction I have given, a 
general rule may be limited by a special clause. And 
it is upon this ground that I lay it down as a principle 
of construction, that all commands given by Christ in 
terms personal to the apostles, descend to, and are 
obligatory upon us, unless they are limited by express 
words, or by the temporary nature of the command 
itself. Unless the general clause all things whatso- 



62 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



ever " be limited by some other clause, or by the nature 
of the command itself, its meaning remains unrestricted ; 
and " all things whatsoever " Christ commanded His 
apostles observe or do, are obligatory upon Christians 
in all ages. 

Whenever associated men are divided, as they must be, 
into different orders, and the distinctions of those differ- 
ent classes, first separately and specifically pointed out, 
then any general direction must, by every rule of con- 
struction, be applied to each in his proper position. As 
a lawgiver, our Lord would consistently begin with the 
first and simplest elements of His system. And as all 
Christians, both lay and clerical, are still individual 
members of the Church, and bound, as such, to discharge 
all the duties of that capacity, our Lord would first teach 
His apostles their duties as simple Christians, and after- 
wards their duties as officers. And He would logically 
give them the commission in the close of His ministry, 
and in terms sufficiently general to include all that had 
been embodied in His permanent code. 

It is a rule, that instructions from a superior to an 
inferior, acting in a certain capacity, are- necessarily 
confined to him in that capacity, unless there be some 
express statement to the contrary. One man may fill 
several offices, where the duties are not incompatible 
with each other, and the same superior officer may 
supervise the inferior in all these different capacities ; 
and, in giving him instructions, would address him at 
the beginning in the capacity for which the instructions 
are intended. So it is in the commission. Christ ad- 
dressed the eleven in their capacity as teachers. He 
first constitutes them such, and then the instructions 
and promise are applied to them in that capacity only. 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 63 



There is another sufficient reason why the use of the 
pronoun " you," in the commission, could not restrict 
the command and promise to the eleven apostles. 

In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, c. xv, v. 52, 
St. Paul, speaking of those Christians who are to be 
living at the end of the world, says : " We shall be 
changed." He says the same thing, in substance, in 
the fourth chapter to the Thessalonians. The pronoun 
" we " is here applied to those Christians v/ho shall live 
many ages after the writer, although the pronoun is in 
the first person. But all Christians, in all ages, in the 
contemplation of the theory of St. Paul, constituted but 
one collective body or corporation, always existing, and 
always present, from the beginning to the end of the 
Christian era, and the use of the pronoun personal was 
strictly proper. So, when he says, till we all come 
in the unity of the faith," he includes all the Christians 
of the future as well as of the then present time. In 
the same way, and for the same reason, when Christ 
constituted a perpetual college of teachers, in the con- 
templation of His theory, this college was then present, 
and would continue to be to the end of time, and the 
use of the pronoun was strictly proper, and His promised 
assistance to the end of the world was in just accord- 
ance with it. 

It would then seem plain, that if Christ intended to 
limit the commission to the apostles, He would appropri- 
ately use the pronoun " you ; " and that, on the contrary, 
if He constituted them a college of teachers, having 
perpetual succession, he could have used the same pro- 
noun with the same propriety; so that the use of this 
pronoun is entirely compatible with either view. But 
it is not so with the phrase " end of the world," which 



64 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



could not be used in the sense required to limit the 
promise to the apostles themselves for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

The persons appointed hy the apostles exercised the 
pozuers conferred hy the commission. 

There is another mode of deciding the question, 
whether this commission extends to the successors of 
the apostles or not. When we see how the apostles put 
the system into practical operation, we may be able to 
arrive at a correct conclusion. 

If Christ intended by this commission to create a 
certain office, having attached to it certain powers and 
duties, and this office was to continue while the church 
should exist, the question of succession is very simple 
and plain. 

What powers did Christ bestow upon the apostles by 
the commission? What powers did He give to them 
in their capacity, as teachers ? The power to " teach 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and the 
power to baptize. Now what incidents does the power 
to teach necessarily include ? 

1. The right to decide what construction they would 
give the law — in other words, what the law required, 
as of faith, and practice. 

2. The duty of those taught to obey. He that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." 

3. The right to reject heretics. 

These incidents are inseparable from the power to 
teach. There would seem to be no question on that 
point. Now if we find that those who succeeded the 
apostles — those whom the apostles appointed to govern 
the church — exercised the same powers necessarily in- 
cluded in this commission, is it not clear, that this com- 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 65 



mission was intended to extend to the successors of 
the apostles? What result could possibly be more plain 
and palpable than this? It ought to be remembered 
that the power belongs to the office, and not to the man, 
that the man must die^ the office not — that all officers, 
as such, act only from mere delegated authority, and 
not of themselves — they are but agents and agency 
ceases with death. • 

From Heb. xiii, 7, 9, 17, it is plain that there were 
certain persons who had the rule or government over 
the Hebrews — that these persons were they that had 
spoken unto them the word of God; that is, those per- 
sons who had obeyed the command " Go teach " — and 
whose faith the Hebrews were commanded to " follow " 
that they might not be " carried about with divers and 
strange doctrines." And again the Hebrews are told 
to " obey them that have the rule over you, and submit 
yourselves." 

The apostle, in these extracts, certainly speaks of 
others besides the apostles, to whom the commission 
was first given. 

The epistles of St. Paul to his two sons in the faith, 
Timothy and Titus are still more explicit. The pas- 
sages have been already quoted. 

Compare the powers exercised by Timothy and Titus 
with those given in the commission, and are they not 
the same? Were not they but carrying out the com- 
mission? From whom did they receive their powers, 
and by what means? God, the Father, constitutes the 
original fountain from which this stream of authority 
flows. Christ says to His apostles : As my Father 
hath sent me, so send I you." " He that receiveth 
whomsoever I sent, receiveth me; and he that receiveth 
me, receiveth Him that sent me." St. Paul received 



66 GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



his authority from Christ, and Timothy and Titus re- 
ceived their authority from St. Paul. 

Certain positions of Mr. Breckenridge examined. 

In reference to the ministerial authority of the Re- 
formers, Bishop Hughes, in his controversy with Mr. 
Breckenridge, asked this question: 

" Had the Reformers themselves, and if not, could 
they transmit to their successors any MINISTERIAL 
AUTHORITY?" To which Mr. B. replied: "that 
whatever authority your church possessed in this way, 
was imparted to them." Bishop H. answered : " But 
our church recalled this authority, in their suspension 
and excommunication, and a new supply was necessary." 
To this Mr. B. replied : " The proper answer to this 
question turns on the settlement of a previous question, 
to wit : had the church of Rome the right or the power, 
in this case, to withdraw their ministerial authority? " 
After giving some reasons Mr. B. takes this distinct 
ground. 

" Then the principle is plain, that when a church 
deposes ministers of Christ for refusing to preach ruin- 
ous errors, and refusing to submit to oppressive usurpa- 
tions, the deposing act is null and void. If a minister 
of Christ be deposed for refusing to sin, the deposition 
is null and void." (Con. H. & B., 294, 443.) 

This position of Mr. B. in its essence, and in its 
practical effect, denies all government in the church. 

It is true Mr. B. puts in a condition. The act of the 
church is only null and void when made for reasons not 
allowed by the law of Christ. But of the sufficiency 
of these reasons, who is to judge? Is it the tribunal 
making the deposition, or the person, deposed? The 
question must be determined by some one before the 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 67 



conclusion can possibly be reached, that the deposition 
is null and void. The power and right to determine 
this important question must rest somewhere. If this 
power resides in the Church, it does not reside in the 
minister. It cannot equally reside in both. The right 
of ultimate decision must remain with only one of the 
two. Mr. B. gives this right and power, in his theory, 
not to the church, but to the person deposed. 

What sort of theory is that which makes the decision 
of the highest tribunal in the government practically 
null and void upon the objection of the very person it 
tries and condemns? The Senate of the United States 
must try all impeachments. Suppose that body should 
try an impeachment of the President, find him guilty, 
and depose him from his office. And suppose his counsel 
should then take the novel and bold ground that the 
deposition was null and void, because contrary to law, 
and oppressive and tyrannical. In such case had not 
the counsel better return to the study of his profession? 
And when the Supreme Court of the United States 
makes a decision, who can declare that decision null 
and void, because given upon grounds alleged not legal 
and just? In the theory of our government that exalted 
tribunal is bound to decide according to law, and in this 
same theory, it always does so decide. That tribunal, 
in the contemplation of the Constitution, cannot err. 
If the Legislature thinks that an Act of Congress has 
been misconstrued, the act may be amended; and future 
cases will come under the new Act. If, in the opinion 
of the people, that Court misconstrues the Constitution, 
they can amend that instrument, and make it plainer. 
Suppose A and B, having a controversy, should go into 
a court of justice and say: May it please the Court, 
we have a matter we wish to submit to the decision of 



68 



GOVERNING POWER OF CHURCH 



this Court, upon the condition that the decision shall suit 
us." The Court would promptly reply : " This Court 
cannot sit here to receive idle and insulting propositions." 
In another place Mr. B. says: 

" We believe in a visible CathoHc (not Roman) church, 
to which appertain the ministry, the oracles, and ordi- 
nances of God, which is to continue to the end of the 
world; to which the Holy Spirit is promised as an 
abiding gift; against which the gates of hell shall not 
prevail; and which is at last to fill the world." (Con. 
H. & B., 6i.) 

Now I cannot put the two positions of the learned 
controversialists together. They seem to be in direct 
conflict. He holds a visible Catholic Church, which is 
to continue to the end of time, to which all the powers 
of government are given, and their exercise guaranteed 
by the Holy Spirit ; and yet when this divinely-protected 
Church ordains a minister, and afterwards deposes him, 
that deposition may be null and void. Here is a church 
to which the Holy Spirit is promised as an " abiding 
gift," and against which the gates of hell " shall not 
prevail," and which at last is to " fill the world," that 
cannot even depose a minister without the liability of 
error — a Church thus divinely protected, that may still 
command her ministers " to preach ruinous errors " and 
" to sin." It would seem a most singular theory, that 
gives the church the abiding gift of the Holy Spirit, 
and guards her against the gates of hell at all times, 
and yet deserts her in the exercise of her highest func- 
tions — the very and only end of her creation. Surely, 
if the Holy Ghost should aid the church at all, this aid 
should be efifective ; and if effective, it must be in making 
her decisions, and in administering the law of this 
kingdom. 



GOVERNING POWER OP CHURCH 69 



According to the theory of Mr. B. the church ordains 
a minister, and then, for causes judged sufficient by 
the ordaining power, deposes him. Yet this sentence 
of deposition, though made by the highest power in 
the church on earth, is not final, not conclusive, in the 
contemplation of his theory. The alleged decision has 
no force, unless the deposed submits. He may say 
it is null and void, and if he does say so, there is no 
power on earth to decide that question against him. 

Is there any government in a Church, whose alleged 
decisions may be set aside by the party condemned, or 
by any other party? What sort of government is that, 
whose assumed decisions, in the contemplation of the 
theory of the government itself, are entitled to so little 
respect, that they can be disregarded by its own citizens 
or subjects? That which we call government is alone, 
it would seem, predicated upon the idea of supremacy — 
the right to make a final and binding decision in each 
particular case. Without this supreme and exclusive 
right placed somewhere in the governmental institution, 
there can be no government at all ; and the organization 
is powerless, and must fail to accomplish the very end 
and purpose of its creation. 

It may be that the learned divine is suitable to his own 
Church, and in strict accordance with her true character ; 
but I am wholly unable to find any intimation in the 
New Testament that the Church of Christ was ever 
liable to these painful infirmities, and that her decisions 
might be null and void. I might as well expect to find 
such an intimation in the Constitution of my . country 
regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
United States; or in the British Constitution with refer- 
ence to the decisions of parliament. 



CHAPTER IV 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH 

All laws intended for the government of men should 
provide some tribunal to determine what the law is. 

The very idea of government supposes the organiza- 
tion of some competent tribunal to determine what the 
law means. Law being a rule prescribed by a superior 
to an inferior, and which the inferior is bound to obey, 
there must, of necessity, be a tribunal to declare and 
administer it. Man being competent to live in society, 
the object of political government is to regulate his 
conduct while in that state; and hence, to secure the 
peaceful union of a great number of individuals under 
one government, laws are made, and courts of justice 
instituted to explain them. 

Among the great number of visionary schemes of 
government put forth by different writers, not one, to 
my knowledge, ever advanced so wild a theory, as to 
dispense with the judicial department, and make each 
individual governed the judge of the law in his own 
case. 

The Constitution of the United States, and the con- 
stitutions of the several states, distribute the powers of 
government among three departments, namely : the Leg- 
islative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And the powers 
conferred upon each of these three departments, are 
all equally necessary to the continued existence of the 

70 



INFALLIBILITY 



71 



government. The absolute monarch either administers 
his own laws himself in person, or through judges act- 
ing for him. 

This very idea of law presupposes this power to 
exist in the government. The very idea of union among 
a number of individuals, cannot be rationally entertained 
without it. There can be no continued union among 
men, without some competent means to preserve it. All 
positive laws intended for the government of men must 
be construed; and as they constitute a rule prescribed 
by a superior, they cannot, in the nature of the case, 
be construed in the last resort by the inferior, the very 
party to be governed. 

Every government must furnish its own tribunal to 
administer its own laws. Every association of individ- 
uals must contain, in itself, some competent power to 
determine controversies. Every society of men must 
have the power lodged somewhere, to construe the law. 

If it be indispensable for the just administration and 
success of the municipal law, that there should be a 
living, speaking judiciary, plainly accessible to all, whose 
duty it is to decide what the law is, and what it means, 
is it not also plain and palpable that there should be a 
like institution to determine the true construction of the 
Divine Law, so as to preserve unity and peace among 
those whom it governs, by keeping the construction of 
the law always the same, throughout every part of the 
association ? 

The mere fact that the Divine law was put forth 
by God in the form of a positive code, does not obviate 
the necessity for the continued existence of some tri- 
bunal to determine what the law means ; for the plain 
reason that this law is intended, like the municipal code, 
to govern men, to unite men, is addressed to men, in 



^2 



INFALLIBILITY 



man's imperfect language, and must, therefore, be con- 
strued by someone ; and there is thus the same, if not 
greater, necessit)^ for uniformity of decision, for peace 
in the association, and of success in the system. The 
fact that this association was intended to embrace all 
Christians everywhere, in all ages, under one law, in 
one united government, is the strongest possible reason 
for the organization of one tribunal of the last resort. 

We will suppose a legislator to put forth a code of 
laws, drawn up with all attainable accuracy, while we 
are forced to convey our ideas through so changeable 
and imperfect a medium as human language, and ad- 
dressed to so frail a mind as that of man, and that he 
should have constituted no tribunal to determine what 
he meant, and should leave the people to whom this 
code was given for a great number of years, and should 
then return and call them up in judgment before him. 
What a strange medley of opinions he would find re- 
garding the construction of his laws ! He would say 
to them : You have misconstrued and violated my laws, 
and I must punish you." They would answer : " That 
is a hard case. You did not treat us fairly. You gave 
us no authorized tribunal to decide for us, whose de- 
cisions from time to time would have settled difficulties, 
and upon which we could have relied for a correct in- 
terpretation of your law. Immediately after you left, 
difficulties of construction arose, and have been con- 
stantly arising ever since; and had there existed a tri- 
bunal, they could have been all settled from time to 
time, as often as they arose." 

And to such unanswerable logic as this, what could 
the legislator justly reply? In vain would he say: " My 
law is plain, simple, and easily understood. It scarcely 
needs construction." They would reply : " Truly and 



INFALLIBILITY 



73 



verily, the wisest men among us, while they declare it 
plain, differ most essentially as to what it means. They 
cannot all understand " plain " alike. And as for most 
of us, we are plain, illiterate men, and the law is not 
plain to* us." 

Is it not, therefore, reasonable that the Divine law, 
which comprehends the whole duty of man, should pro- 
vide a tribunal to construe it, and thus to settle all dis- 
putes in the association respecting it? If such a tribunal 
be necessary in political government, is it not even more 
so in the Christian system? 

It is true that there is a vast difference between tem- 
poral and eternal happiness; but this fact only renders 
it the more necessary to understand the Divine law, and 
proves the greater necessity of a competent tribunal to 
construe it in the last resort. Besides this, it is still 
happiness and happiness of the same being, that con- 
stitutes the ultimate end of both systems. Temporal 
and eternal happiness differ in degree and duration. 
Government is only a means and not an end. The 
immediate end proposed by both systems is the practical 
and continued union of men. It does not matter that 
the ultimate ends of these different systems are not the 
same in degree and duration, while they are the same in 
substance. If the means used are substantially the 
same, these means must be subject to the same general 
laws. If our Lord resorted to a visible association of 
men to accomplish the union of His followers, and the 
united, and, therefore, successful spread of His system, 
this association of men must, in itself, possess all the 
essential requisites that enter into, and constitute all 
associations, and render them practically efficient to ac- 
complish the purpose intended. 



7 



INFALLIBILITY 



Such tribunal must possess infallibility, either actual or 
judicial, according to the nature of the system. 

As the municipal law only assumes to control our 
outward acts^ and does not reach our mere belief and 
intentions, a man may believe all the falsehood, and 
intend all the wrong he pleases, and still commit no 
offence against that code. But it is not so in the perfect 
law of God, which controls us in belief, intention, and 
act. 

If union among men be necessary for any given pur- 
pose, the preservation of that union becomes equally 
important, so long as that purpose continues to exist; 
and this union cannot be accomplished unless some 
fair and adequate means be provided for this end. It 
may be laid down as an unerring principle, that union, 
in any association of men, cannot continue to exist with- 
out peace ; and that peace cannot be preserved without 
competent means to end disputes. The happiness that 
men expect to obtain by entering into society cannot 
be enjoyed without peace, to secure which a tribunal 
must be established to decide controversies. 

If we go into the appropriate apartment of the Cap- 
itol, at Washington City, we shall find in session an 
august tribunal, before whose bar the most learned and 
gifted men of the nation display their reasoning elo- 
quence. This great court is composed of a very few 
judges, whose equals, if not superiors, in mental and 
moral qualifications, are found among the great lawyers 
who stand before it, and also among the learned judges 
who sit in the state courts; and yet its decisions are 
conclusive upon all. Its adjudications not only control 
the course of decision of the inferior Federal tribunals, 
but are binding upon the state courts, and are competent 



INFALLIBILITY 



75 



to annul the acts of the President and of Congress. 

Before this lofty tribunal, honor, titles, wealth, and 
fame are powerless ; and nothing but pure legal justice 
is presumed, in contemplation of law, to govern and 
guide its conclusions. No armed bands of soldiers throng 
its halls to protect it and enforce its decisions, and yet 
this court settles questions involving the dearest rights 
of millions of civilized and enlightened men. This ven- 
erable tribunal is the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and upon it the Constitution of our country has 
conferred judicial infallibility. 

The framers of that great instrument, the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, were men of preeminent abil- 
ity, and they gave to it all the certainty attainable by 
them. And yet they knew it would be idle to make a 
constitution and laws under it, and not organize courts 
for their construction. They also knew that it was 
useless to have courts, unless their decisions could be 
made final; and for this purpose they provided for the 
organization of ONE SUPREME COURT, with appel- 
late jurisdiction, and gave Congress the power to pro- 
vide for the creation of inferior tribimals only. 

In the contemplation of our Constitution, the Supreme 
Court cannot err. There is no legal power anywhere 
to question its decisions. All must submit. It is not 
in the power of the President, the Congress, and all 
the State courts combined, to set aside one of its deci- 
sions. And yet it is generally conceded that the court 
has actually rendered incorrect decisions. That court 
sustained the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition 
laws, which decision is now almost universally held to 
have been erroneous. But admitting that the Court 
has not yet actually erred, it must be conceded that it 
may. The framers of the Constitution were compelled 



76 



INFALLIBILITY 



to bestow upon this tribunal judicial infallibility, because 
they could bestow no other, and some sort of infallibility 
was indispensable. It is a much less evil to submit to 
an occasional erroneous decision than to have no decision 
at all, so necessary is peace. 

Actual infallibility must be found in the Christian asso- 
ciation. 

If there be any union required by the law of Christ, 
and any tribunal to decide disputes, is it not clear that 
such tribunal must, of necessity, possess infallibility of 
some sort, or else the institution be totally defective and 
insufficient? If there be no infallibility in the associa- 
tion of men, formed in accordance with the law of God, 
then it is more defective than mere political govern- 
ments, and cannot possibly possess any living, perpetuat- 
ing principle. For what purpose does a tribunal decide, 
if its decision is not final, or cannot be made final, by 
an appeal to a higher court? What is the object of a 
decision? To end disputes; and if not final, it does 
not end the controversy, and is simply idle. 

And if God did establish such tribunal, could He, in 
reason, give it mere judicial infallibility? Would He 
make it as defective as mere human institutions, when 
He possessed the wisdom and the power to make it 
perfect? Does God do His work in that way? It is 
true, that if God implicitly required all the members 
to submit to the decisions of such a tribunal, the associa- 
tion might continue, but it would not continue the same 
pure association. The tribunal being actually fallible, 
and only judicially infallible, must actually err, sooner 
or later, and God would thus be requiring implicit sub- 
mission to erroneous decisions. The idea of a tribunal 
only clothed with mere judicial infallibilit}^, deciding 



INFALLIBILITY 



77 



finally upon a law dictated by actual infallibility, would 
seem to be clearly erroneous. And the idea of a tribunal 
of the last resort deciding upon a law given in human 
language, and such decision not being final, would seem 
equally inadmissible. 

Had the framers of political constitutions possessed 
the power, they no doubt would have bestowed upon 
their judiciary actual, instead of mere judicial infalli- 
bility. But as God possessed the power and the wisdom, 
and, therefore, did make a perfect law, would He not 
necessarily create a tribunal competent to construe such 
a law? 

Our Creator made man and placed him upon the earth. 
He bestowed upon him the faculty of reason, and its 
necessary incident, free will. He gave to this free 
agent a direct and positive law, prescribed by Himself ; 
the immediate end of this law was to bring all men 
of good will into one association of pure faith and virtue, 
to be governed by this one law; that this law was given 
in human language, and must be construed. God does 
not Himself visibly preside, in this collective body of 
men, for the purpose of deciding controversies, but for 
this end He organized a tribunal in this association, and 
delegated to it power and authority to decide, with in- 
fallible certainty. 

Is this not a rational theory, beautiful to the judg- 
ment, and consolatory to the heart? It would seem to 
possess every element of a perfect system, harmonious, 
practical, and just, in every feature. 

The judicial power of the Church must extend to every 
violation of the law. 

The Constitution of the United States organized a 
government, possessing certain defined powers, and in- 



78 



INFALLIBILITY 



tended to accomplish certain great national objects. The 
instrument, in the theory of the system, is the funda- 
mental and unchangeable law, until amended in pursu- 
ance of its own provisions. As the legislative power, 
from the nature of mere human systems, and the limited 
capacity of men, and the constantly varying circum- 
stances of the people governed, could not all be bene- 
ficially exercised at the beginning, it is left, in part, in 
the government, to be exercised, from time to time, 
within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. The 
powers of this government are divided between three 
departments, the legislative, the executive, and the judi- 
ciary, which, together, embrace all the powers com- 
municated to the system. In reference to the extent of 
the judicial power. Chancellor Kent has said: 

" The judicial power in every government must be co- 
extensive with the power of legislation. Were there no 
power to interpret, pronounce, and execute the law, the 
government would either perish through its own imbecil- 
ity, as was the case with the old Confederation^ or other 
powers must be assumed by the legislative body, to the 
destruction of liberty." (Kent i, 296.) 

While the legislative power in the Christian govern- 
ment could be exercised in advance, in reference to all 
the material and permanent features of the system, the 
executive and judicial powers, from their nature, could 
not, as already stated, but must continue in the Church, 
and be exercised as often as occasion may require. It 
would, therefore, seem plain that the governing power 
left by Christ in the Church must have jurisdiction over 
all cases embraced within the law governing the insti- 
tution. In other words, if Christ gave to His own in- 
stitution a law for its government, " commanding what 
is right, and prohibiting what is wrong " ; then, whatever 



INFALLIBILITY 



79 



governing power, if any, He placed in the church, must 
embrace whatever is commanded or prohibited by the 
law. The code is mainly intended for practical application 
in this world, and is, therefore, given for a certain end. 
There are two kinds of obedience required by the system, 
instead of one only, and as they are both vitally important 
to reach the end aimed at by the law-maker, whatever 
power was left in the church to construe and apply the 
law, must extend to both these particulars, or the in- 
stitution must perish through its own imbecility." 

Every violation of the law is an offence, more or less 
aggravated, according to its nature, as defined by the 
law itself. Heresy, which may be defined as the wilful 
disbelief of an essential article of faith, or the wilful be- 
lief of an essential false doctrine, by one who professes to 
be a Christian, is, therefore, an offence against the system, 
for the reason that the law requires correct faith, and 
prohibits a false one. Thus Christ says : " He that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned;" and St. Paul speaks of 
heresies as offences against the law of Christ, (I Cor. xi, 
19) ; and in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Gala- 
tians. 

The language of the apostle is clear and explicit, that 
those offences exclude the guilty party from the King- 
dom of heaven ; and heresy is classed with idolatry, mur- 
der, and the other offences mentioned. And if the 
judicial power of the Church extends to any one of these 
offences, it must extend to all. 

The necessity for such a tribunal shown from the true 
character of Scripture. 

In the mind of Christ there was no confusion, but 
all was unclouded, intellectual day. When He came to 
convey His will through so imperfect and changeable a 



8o 



INFALLIBILITY 



medium as human language, addressed to so frail a 
mind as that of man, it would seem that certainty 
could not possibly be attained, under the circumstances, 
without an infallible interpreter. His law is the most 
extensive and wonderful code ever given to man, em- 
bracing not only plain and simple truths, but truths 
of the most sublime and abstruse character; revelations 
of awful import; a code regulating in the most perfect 
manner, all our duties in all the multiplied relations of 
life, and our whole duty to God. 

As to the imperfect and changeable character of lan- 
guage, all intelligent writers are agreed. Its imperfec- 
tions are most fully understood by statesmen, jurists, 
and lawyers. Before courts of justice, where the rules 
of investigation are the most rigid, and searching, the 
true character of this medium is best understood. 

Such is the intrinsic imperfection of all human lan- 
guage, that it frequently becomes impossible, from the 
mere words alone of any writing, to ascertain the mean- 
ing of the parties." (Wheaton's Law of Nations, 3d 
Ed., p. 77, 334.) 

" But such is the imperfection of human language, 
and the want of technical skill in the makers of the law, 
that statutes often give occasion to the most perplexing 
doubts and discussions, arising from the ambiguity that 
attends them." (I Kent, 461.) 

" The fluctuating use of words, which prevails in every 
language, gives rise to frequent changes in their mean- 
ing." (Ernesti, as quoted by Mr. Rice in C. & R's. 
debate, 201.) 

The learned Protestant Bishop- Walton very justly 
says : 

" The word of God does not consist in mere letters, 
whether written or printed, but in the sense of it ; which 



INFALLIBILITY 



8i 



no one can better interpret than the true church, to 
which Christ has committed this sacred pledge." (Cited 
Milner's End of Con., p. 56.) 

" Let us be persuaded," says St. Augustine, " that the 
Gospel consists not in the words, but in the sense." 
(Cited id., 56.) 

Mr. Justice Johnson, in his able opinion in Martin v. 
Hunter's Lessee, (i Wheaton, 376,) said that language 
is essentially defective in precision." 

In the nature of a supernatural system, revealing truths 
that we never could reach by the mightiest efforts of 
unaided reason, and prescribing a perfect morality far 
above all our natural conceptions of justice, and embrac- 
ing so many interests, both temporal and eternal, we 
must expect to find many truths and duties of a plain 
and simple character, and some most difficult. If the 
system be extensive, and assume to regulate many in- 
terests, it must, of necessity, be more complex, or other- 
wise it must be incomplete. A system of law requisite to 
governing a wandering race of men may be very simple, 
for the reason that they have few rights to protect. They 
have no merchants, and they need no bills of exchange; 
they have no lands, and need no land law; they have 
little or no property, and need no law to protect that; 
they have no mechanics, and need no law of lien ; they 
have no steamboats, no railroads, no telegraphic lines, 
and need no laws to regulate that which they have not. 
But the moment a people take to a new branch of busi- 
ness, they need, and must have, a law to protect it. And 
as their employments increase, their code of laws must 
also be extended, and in proportion as the code is ex- 
tended to new objects, so is its complexity increased. 
Each new subject gives rise to a new law, and each new 
law gives rise to some difficult questions. The Legisla- 



82 



INFALLIBILITY 



ture is therefore compelled, either to leave interests un- 
protected, or to enact laws from time to time, as these 
interests increase. 

When we examine the written word of God, we find 
many things in it easy to be understood, and some things 
hard to be understood. The narrative portions, as a 
general thing, are plain and simple, but the doctrinal 
portions are more difficult. Let any calm, sincere, and 
clear-headed reader examine the New Testament care- 
fully, without any preconceived system of faith in his 
mind, and he must find some things hard to be under- 
stood. He will find this fact apparent upon the face of 
the record. 

That the great and overwhelming majority of men, in 
every age and country, who rely alone upon their indi- 
vidual judgment belong either to the call of unlearned 
or unstable, would seem to need no proof. If it did, it 
is conclusively shown among Protestants, from the fact 
of so many different parties existing among them, who 
can never understand the plain Bible alike. Whatever 
may be their worldly and literary knowledge, they are 
not learned and stable in the sense of the apostle ; other- 
wise there could not exist the five hundred different sects 
in Protestant Christendom. And the more earnestly and 
emphatically they contend that the Scriptures are plain 
and easily understood in all important points, the more 
powerfully do they condemn themselves for those di- 
visions so utterly inconsistent with right reason and the 
united and consistent law of Christ. 

Causes of the obscurity of the Scriptures. 

There exists a difficulty in the construction and ap- 
plication of the Scriptures, that must, in the nature of 
things, exist in every code of law, however extensive or 



INFALLIBILITY 



83 



limited it may be. And this difficulty is greater in the 
Christian than in the civil code, for the reason that the 
former embraces a much larger sphere of duties, con- 
templates ends much more important and enduring, and 
relates to objects more sublime, varied, and difficult. 
This difficulty cannot be avoided by any possible accu- 
racy of language or scientific arrangement, although it 
may be modified by such accuracy to some extent. 

The great leading principles of the law of the land are 
expressed in language as accurate and certain, as cen- 
turies of discussion and examination by the most acute 
and powerful minds in the world, could possibly enable 
them to select ; and these principles are as familiar to our 
courts as time, experience, and study could make them. 
And yet, it is a well-known fact, that new cases of the 
most perplexing character arise in our courts every day, 
that are ultimately determined by the legitimate applica- 
tion and extension of these old and familiar principles. 
And this difficulty arises, not from the want of certainty 
in the statement of a principle; not from any avoidable 
ambiguity in the language ; and not from ignorance of 
the principle itself ; but it arises from the uncertainty 
whether a given state of case comes within the principle. 

For instance, the Constitution of the United States 
was framed by men of the most eminent ability, and of 
the most unquestioned integrity. They were great jur- 
ists, lawyers, and statesmen, and they gave to the in- 
strument all the certainty and accuracy attainable by 
them. Yet, immediately after the adoption of the Con- 
stitution, a very able work, the Federalist, was written 
by Mr. Madison and others, for the purpose of render- 
ing its provisions more clear. Many thousands of pages 
have been written by the most eminent men of the na- 
tion, to explain the meaning of a short instrument of 



84 



INFALLIBILITY 



nine or ten pages ; Mr. Justice Story's commentaries upon 
the Constitution, fill thirteen hundred pages. Discussions 
in Congress, in the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and in the Courts of every State in the Union, and by the 
greatest men of the country, have still left many 
questions in painful doubt and uncertainty. This di- 
versity of views has not arisen so much from any avoid- 
able ambiguity in the language of the Constitution, as 
from the difficulty of applying its provisions to the new 
and complicated cases that have arisen from time to time. 

Among the many provisions of that instrument, which 
is stated in language as definite and certain as any 
that could, perhaps, be selected, and yet has given rise 
to many decisions and conflicting opinions among legisla- 
tors and jurists, is that part of the tenth section of the 
first article, which provides that no state shall pass any 
law impairing the obligation of contracts." The word, 
contract, as a legal term, is very accurate, and well un- 
derstood. And yet the Supreme Court of the United 
States has been compelled to decide many acts of the 
Legislatures of different States unconstitutional under 
this prohibition. New questions arise under this provi- 
sion and the acts of the State Legislatures continually, 
and will, most probably, for many years to come. The 
varied cases arising under this single provision of the 
Constitution, which apparently seems so clear and simple, 
go to show, what every jurist and lawyer knows, that 
one of the chief difficulties in the constructions and ad- 
ministration of law often arises in the application of a 
familiar principle. 

If we take up the New Testament, and exclude the 
narrative portions of the Gospels and the Acts, and the 
local and argumentative portions of the Epistles, and all 
repetitions in each, we shall find a very small space oc- 



INFALLIBILITY 



8S 



cupied by the provisions of the written law of Christi- 
anity. Yet this code embraces much more than any hu- 
man system, and so concisely are its leading principles 
stated, that they occupy a very small space. 

If, then, the Christian code embraces a more extensive 
range of duties than any municipal code; and, like all 
other codes, only lays down principles, and does not at- 
tempt to decide each case in detail, it would seem reason- 
able that we must expect as great, if not greater difficult- 
ies to arise in the application of its great principles, than 
those we meet in the practical application of the laws of 
civil government. We would naturally anticipate that 
the pride, the ingenuity, the ambition of men, as well as 
the honest mistakes of a zeal not according to knowledge, 
would bring up many questions of the most perplexing 
character, giving rise to a great variety of views, in the 
absence of some common and competent tribunal to decide 
all questions for all parties. 

If we take up, and carefully examine, the New Testa- 
ment narrative concise as it is, we shall find, that even at 
that early day, difficulties arose at every step, in the ap- 
plication of its principles. While the twelve were with 
Christ, we find our Lord often upbraiding them for their 
want of faith, and their slowness to understand. Re- 
peated explanations were given by our Lord to His apos- 
tles, who heard all His instructions, and witnessed all His 
miracles. They did not even understand that He was to 
rise again from the dead, until after the happening of that 
event. We are surprised to find this proneness to unbe- 
lief, and this dulness of apprehension, in the chosen apos- 
tles, after all they had seen and heard; and we are very 
naturally inclined to pay ourselves the happy compliment 
to think that we should have been, under such wonder- 
ful circumstances, much more docile, confiding, and apt 



INFALLIBILITY 



to understand. But in coming to this conclusion we show 
a very imperfect appreciation of the difficulties that must 
attend the individual investigation of a system so myste- 
rious and sublime ; and we exhibit a very inaccurate con- 
ception of the weakness and frailty of the human mind. 
For, after ages of experience, and after the greatest crit- 
ics have written more upon the construction of this small, 
but wonderful volume, than upon any other one subject 
in the world, the same difficulties in the way of individual 
examination still exist; and not only so, but they in- 
crease with time ; so that those who rely upon their indi- 
vidual construction, are divided into more numerous part- 
ies than ever. 

Examples, may be found in the New Testament, to 
show that in the days of the apostles numerous difficult 
judicial questions arose at intervals, in the application of 
conceded principles to particular cases, requiring the de- 
cision of the governing power of the church to settle 
them. And if we follow down the stream of events, 
after the days of the apostles, we shall find new questions 
often arising, from age to age, and requiring the applica- 
tion of the law to the facts and circumstances of each 
new case, as it arose. 

That the right of revolution cannot exist in the members 
of the church. 

If it be conceded or proved, that whatever governing 
power was left by Christ to be exercised by the officers of 
the church, must embrace whatever was commanded or 
prohibited by the law of this institution — that certainty 
as to the true construction of the code is indispensable — 
that the Scriptures contain obscurities peculiar to them, 
as well as those common to every code of law — and 
that those things hard to be understood must still be 



INFALLIBILITY 



87 



understood, at least sufficiently to believe them — does 
it not follow most logically that there is the same neces- 
sity and propriety for the judicial power of the church to 
be guided by the same infallible Spirit that guided and 
controlled the legislative power necessary to complete the 
code? In other words, the legislative and judicial pow- 
ers of government should be guided alike by the same 
infallible Power. 

The lawful and valid acts of a republican form of 
government are the acts of the people, in their united 
capacity. Hence an individual citizen or subject cannot 
lawfully resist the execution of a law in his individual 
capacity. Nor can any number of individuals, separately 
or combined, do this lawfully, so long as the system 
shall last. The same power that created the government 
may amend it, either in the mode pointed out by the 
fundamental law, or they may do so by exercising the 
right of revolution in extreme cases. 

This right of revolution does not and cannot exist in 
the Church. Christ was the sole and only founder. It 
is compared to a Kingdom, not to a republic. The right 
to institute this government was not, therefore, derived 
from the consent of the governed. The consent of the 
governed can properly be required only when the parties 
governed constitute the sovereign power. In other 
words, when partners institute a government for them- 
selves, the consent of a majority is requisite. But not so 
when a government is instituted by a superior being for 
an inferior. Whatever laws Christ gave His Church, 
and whatever powers of government He bestowed upon 
Her, must remain unchanged, unless changed in pur- 
suance of some provision of the law itself. And if no 
such provision exists, then such change cannot be made. 

The idea of a reserved right in the party governed to 



88 



INFALLIBILITY 



decide whether the officer placed over him by Christ and 
acting solely as the agent of Christ, construes the law 
correctly or not, is utterly incompatible with every prin- 
ciple of government. For even in political government, 
the right of the citizen or subject thus to decide in his 
capacity as the party governed, does not exist. 

I remember a striking illustration of the principle, that 
an insult to the agent or officer, is an insult to the power 
he represents. I was a practicing lawyer at the time, and 
the judge who presided was an upright officer, and has 
since been a member of the United States Senate. An 
ordinary man had taken a personal dislike to the judge 
for some imaginary cause, (as dislikes and enmities 
among men mostly arise from prejudice and imagination,) 
and therefore he committed a contempt of Court by some 
insolent conduct, intended as an insult to the judge 
personally. He was arrested and brought before the 
Court. When he first appeared before his Honor, he 
seemed to be quite stubborn and malicious. The Judge 
addressed him briefly, but in very noble language. You 
have," said he in substance, to the culprit, " insulted this 
Court, and not the judge personally. I act not for my- 
self. I am but an agent of the State. For myself in- 
dividually I ask no protection from insult, but I do ask 
it for my country — for the sovereign State, whose ser- 
vant I am. You have not insulted me, but you have 
insulted your fellow-citizens — the people of the whole 
State, of which you are also a citizen. You have in- 
sulted your country, and it is made my duty, by the laws 
of the State, to protect her dignity and her honor from 
insult and contempt. But as you have acted under a 
mistake as to the object of your contempt, the Court will 
only impose upon you a small fine." 

I never saw a man so mortified as the poor culprit. 



INFALLIBILITY 



89 



For the first time in his Hfe he understood the distinction 
between an individual and an officer. 

The duty of the judicial power. 

It is the duty of the judicial power, in every govern- 
ment, to construe the law, and apply it to particular cases. 
The legislative power makes the law, and the judicial 
power only construes and applies it. The difficulties are 
about as great in the exercise of one power as in that of 
the other, and it requires about equal capacity to attain 
perfection in each. 

That a lawmaker, possessing the same capacity, could 
use language as correctly as the judge who decides the 
law, is clear, and must be conceded. But the two are 
placed in very different positions. There is a wonder- 
ful difference between making a law in advance, and 
afterwards construing it. 

All laws are made in advance, and before any case 
can arise under them. They are intended to govern fu- 
ture, not past actions. Hence it follows that law can 
only lay down principles, but cannot apply them to par- 
ticular cases, that arise after the law is made. Law 
must, in the very nature of the fact, deal in principles, 
embracing a variety of cases under each principle. Law 
never speaks but once. It never changes its language, 
although the meaning of its terms may be changed by 
usage. Under any and all sorts of perversion, it says 
no more. It adopts no new illustrations, suited to the 
particular question raised, and the capacity of the party. 
It decides no particular case. All it can do is to lay 
down principles. It cannot enumerate, in advance, the 
incidents that will make up each particular case that may 
afterwards arise, and pronounce the proper judgment. 

But it is not so with a living, speaking judiciary. A 
8 



go 



INFALLIBILITY 



particular case comes up before it. The question is, does 
this particular case come within a certain principle ? The 
tribunal says yea or nay. It does not leave the party to 
construe the law, and by comparison and rational de- 
duction to arrive at the intent of the lawmaker, but says 
to him plainly, " in this case you are wrong," or " you are 
right," as the case may be. The Court, as each new case 
arises, makes a construction of the law in reference only 
to that case. As all cases consist of a certain number of 
incidents, when one case is decided in a certain way, all 
cases afterwards arising, having the same incidents, come 
under the principle settled. If the decision is misunder- 
stood, the Court is always in being, ready, able, and will- 
ing to correct any misconstruction of its opinion. 

It is true, that while all must admit that this decision 
is legally right and judicially infallible, many will doubt- 
less think that the decision ought to have been different. 
But suppose that Court had possessed actual, instead of 
mere judicial infallibility, what perfect unanimity would 
have resulted from such a decision — not only unanimity 
of submission, but also of relief. In such case no man, 
admitting the existence of this actual infallibility, would 
ever question the correctness of the decision, in argument 
or theory. All would have been perfect unanimity in 
the two elements of act and belief. 

Many of the disputed passages of Scripture are only 
subject to one of two opposite constructions, one of which 
being condemned, the other must stand. " This is m.y 
body" admits of but one of two opposite constructions. 
How easy would it te for an authorized tribunal to settle 
the construction! A tribunal confines its decision to a 
single point at a time, and adapts its language to the 
precise state of particular misconstruction. Though it 
is the general character of language, as a medium of 



INFALLIBILITY 



91 



thought, to be deficient in precision, there are still certain 
forms of expression too plain to be misunderstood. The 
tribunal could take the very words of the proposition 
and say, " this is wrong." Suppose we had the Council 
of Jerusalem still with us, could not that tribunal settle 
the questions now in dispute as it did the one before 
it? 

The decisive advantages of a living, speaking tribunal 
are, i. It decides after the difficulty has arisen, and 
adapts its language to the precise state of the particular 
case. 2. It can repeat its explanations until it must be 
understood. 3. It is always prepared to meet every new 
difficulty, as occasion may demand. 

The judicial power was exercised by the apostolic church. 

There are only, as I conceive, three possible ways in 
which Christ could produce certainty in the construction 
of His law: 

1. By an inspired personal revelation of the true con- 
struction to each individual, as often as occasion should 
arise. 

2. By the institution of an infallible tribunal. 

3. By enumerating in advance all the exact incidents 
of each particular case, and pronouncing the proper judg-, 
ment as to each. 

By far the most simple, logical, and consistent method, 
is the second one. The first is liable to many serious ob- 
jections. It does away with the necessity of teachers, and 
of all government in the church ; and besides, the in- 
spired persons might know themselves that they were 
right, but others would have no test by which they could 
determine between the true and the pretending believer. 
Each individual asserting, as a matter of fact, resting in 
his own individual knowledge, and not, therefore, to be 



92 



INFALLIBILITY 



disputed, that his interpretation was inspired, the con- 
fusion produced would be endless. The third effort 
would have required an amount of labor at the beginning 
too extensive and difficult. 

The powers of government given to the church, were 
given to the visible church, as we already proved. When 
Christ tells us to hear the church, He certainly means 
the visible Church. And when He speaks of one fold. 
He must refer to the visible Church. And when we are 
told that the " Lord added daily to the Church such as 
should be saved," we are informed that they were added 
to the visible Church. And the church in which Timothy 
was to behave himself, v/as the visible Church, " the pillar 
and ground of the truth." The duties inculcated upon 
Timothy and Titus were to be discharged in the visible 
Church. The Council of Jerusalem was held in the visi- 
ble Church, and they issued visible decrees. 

Whatever powers of government Christ bestowed upon 
the Church, were to be exercised by the visible Church, 
and this exercise was guided by the Holy Ghost in the 
days of the apostles. If those powers and this guidance 
were intended to be temporary, and to last only for the 
first few years of her existence, and then forever to 
cease, of course the exact limits of their duration are 
plainly marked ; otherwise it would be very difficult to 
determine, from the Scripture, the period when they 
did cease, or whether they were to cease at all. But 
no such limits are set, and we find the promises accom- 
panied with expressions that refer to all coming time. 
We cannot, therefore, without the utmost violence to the 
language, and the whole drift and spirit of the system, 
decide them to have been temporary in their character. 

In the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew 
our Lord said: 



INFALLIBILITY 



93 



" And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the 
church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be 
unto thee as a heathen and a publican.'' (verse 17.) 

When Christ tells us to hear the church. He speaks of 
but one Church — the Church He instituted. He says 
" THE CHURCH " in the singular. He does not refer 
to " the church " as existing in this or that age, in this 
or that country, but He refers to the corporate institution 
as existing in all after ages. The Church is viewed as 
an artificial person or corporation, that never dies, and 
that can speak through her proper organs. He says 

hear the Church." It is the Church that speaks, not 
the individual members in their own right. 

But not only does Christ say that the Church can speak, 
but He commands us, without any reservation, to hear 
the church." There is no exception made. The com- 
mand is general and imperative. Would He command 
us to hear, without any reservation or exception, a mere 
fallible tribunal? In such case we should be compelled 
to " hear the church," whether she spoke the truth or not. 

Again our Lord says explicitly : " Upon this rock I 
will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not pre- 
vail against it." 

The Church is here viewed in the light of a visible 
structure, founded upon a rock, and that is the reason 
why St. Paul afterwards calls this Church the " house of 
God." Now the phrase " my church " — the phrase the 
church " — and the phrase " house of God," unques- 
tionably refer to one and the same thing precisely; 
namely: the visible Church. 

When, therefore, Christ tells us that the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against this church, His promise regards 
the entire Church of all ages, in the same way that the 
command to hear the church does. The promise is as 



94 



INFALLIBILITY 



general and unlimited as the command ; and they both 
must stand or fall together. They both regard the 
Church as existing through all coming time. 

Christ establishes the Church as a decider of contro- 
versies arising under the Christian law; and then says, 
in another place, that the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against her. This promise has relation to the command 
to hear the Church. As the Church possessed the power 
to decide controversies, this must be one end of its insti- 
tution. The power was given for a great and beneficial 
purpose. If she failed to exercise this power correctly, 
she would so far fail to attain the end of her creation. 
Nothing would seem more consonant with reason and 
Scripture than this : that teaching the truth was the lead- 
ing end to be accomplished by the visible church, and that 
the power and duty of teaching must include the right 
and duty to determine what shall be taught, and what is 
contrary thereto. And if the church failed in this main 
purpose of her creation, that then the gates of hell would 
prevail against her. 

It would seem also clear that the temporary errors of 
particular teachers, would not subvert the entire Church, 
any more than the errors of inferior courts would subvert 
civil government. They are spots upon the sun, and 
spots only. When the entire governing power of the 
Church is subverted (wherever that power is held to be 
placed), then the gates of hell would surely prevail 
against her. Such a result would be in plain violation of 
the promises of Christ. 

If we say that the Church has ceased, or will cease, to 
exist at any period before her prescribed course has been 
run, then we must concede the failure of the promises o£ 
Christ; not only because such a failure would be in di- 
rect conflict with His clear and most explicit promises — 



INFALLIBILITY 



95 



" lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world " — the gates of hell shall not prevail against it " 
— but because the continued existence of the Church is 
necessary to accomplish the great and beneficent purposes 
of His mission. The Church having been constituted by 
Him, His teaching agent, it was but just to all ages, that 
this same teaching authority should be always in exist- 
ence, and always visible. If we regard the Church as a 
visible corporation (and we can form no conception 
of an invisible corporation composed of visible men) then 
her continued existence must follow, or she must die to 
exist no more on earth. The promises of Christ to her 
were unconditional, and not conditional, as were His 
promises to individuals regarding matters of their own. 
Her unfailing existence and continued purity, as a teach- 
ing agent, are absolutely necessary to accomplish the great 
ends contemplated in her creation. If we once concede 
that the Church can fail, then we concede that Christ 
was fallible, weak, and impotent, and only created an in- 
stitution like himself. 

What did our Lord mean by the expression, " I am 
with you — abide with you ? " These expressions which 
mean the same thing, are very often used by Christ, and 
in every case the meaning is invariably the same ; namely : 
" I am with you to aid you with my power." It always 
means that the persons to whom the promise was given 
were to be guided and protected by him. The presence 
of the Holy Ghost did the same. Of course our Lord 
could not be with them for a mere idle purpose, and He 
could only be with them to enable them to accomplish the 
end proposed. Therefore, the ef¥ect of this promise is 
always limited to the objects for which it was given. 
When Christ constituted a college of teachers, and prom- 
ised to be with them to the end of the world. He only 



96 



INFALLIBILITY 



promised to be with them in the office He created, and 
for the purposes of the office. 

The words of St. Paul are very emphatic and clear. 
Speaking of the visible Church, he calls it " the church 
of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 
Observe the certainty and force of the expressions — the 
Church — the pillar and (the) ground of the truth — the 
house — the living God. There was one God, one house, 
one church, one pillar, one ground, and one system of 
truth referred to, and only one. 

The apostle had ample reason for saying so. He com- 
* manded his brethren to " obey, submit to, and follow the 
faith of them that had the rule over them," and had him- 
self been at the Council of Jerusalem, and had witnessed 
that tribunal guided by the Holy Spirit to a final decision. 
He might well call the Church the pillar and ground of 
the truth, and as the pillar, but also as the ground of the 
truth, how could such an institution be anything but in- 
fallible? How could a church teaching essential error 
be the pillar and ground of the truth? In such case she 
would be the pillar and ground of error, and not of 
truth. 

If we consider the necessity, and the end and object 
of the organization of the visible Church — the perfect 
.character and unlimited power of its founder — the 
nature of all governments of law over associated bodies of 
men — the inherent defects of all language — the ob- 
scurities peculiar to the Scriptures — the difficulty even 
in the application of well-understood principles to par- 
ticular cases — the obstacles to be overcome by this great 
institution, arising from the extent of its empire, the long 
period of its existence, the variety of races, manners, 
habits, and national prejudices — the perfection of faith 
and practice required — and then see what Christ and 



INFALLIBILITY 



97 



His apostles did do — how our Lord first taught His 
disciples, and then appointed them as teachers, and they 
ill turn did the same thing, and commanded those they 
appointed to appoint others — how the teachers had the 
rule over the apostolic Church, and their faith was to be 
followed, and they to be obeyed — how our Lord com- 
manded His followers to hear the Church, and promised 
to found it upon a rock, and protect it against the gates 
of hell, and to be with His teachers to the end of the 
world, and to send them the Holy Ghost to abide with 
them forever — and then see how Christ carried out 
these promises by guiding the decision of the Coun- 
cil of Jerusalem to infallible certainty, making the 
Church the pillar and ground of the truth in fact — 
and when, to use the touching language of the noble 
St. Paul, we think on these things," and sincerely, 
and without prejudice, calmly put them all together, 
and fully appreciate the combined force of all, then 
it is that the conclusion becomes irresistible, that 
Christ was the Divine founder of a perfect system — that 
the permanent code was made perfect at the beginning, 
not only because He possessed the power and the wisdom 
to make it so, but that all His subjects in all after ages, 
might be alike governed by the same law — that as the 
necessary judicial power to secure this permanent end, 
could not be exercised in advance, He confided it to His 
agents, whom He qualifies and guides from age to age, 
with the same Infallible Spirit that dictated the code it- 
self. 

It would also seem evident from the very nature of 
mere delegated authority, that this protection from error 
only extended to the apostles and their successors in their 
official capacity, leaving them, in their personal capacity, 
as other individual members of the Church. As agents 



98 



INFALLIBILITY 



and officers of Christ, they were guided by the Holy 
Spirit, because their acts, in that capacity, were HIS 
ACTS. When they assumed to act for Him, He did not 
permit them to err in His name. If they had the power 
to err as His agents, then we could not know that the 
facts stated by them as His chosen and inspired witnesses, 
were infallibly true. Christ then guaranteed their official 
not their personal, conduct. 

Objections considered. 

In this connection it will be necessary to examine cer- 
tain texts and reasons, which are relied on by Protestant 
writers to show, that even in the days of the apostles, the 
right of private interpretation existed in each member 
independent of the church, and not in subordination to it. 
If such right existed in that day, as a matter of course 
it existed ever after. If, on the contrary, it did not exist 
then, it never existed afterwards. 

It is difficult upon principles of sound reasoning, to 
understand how this right could exist in the individual 
members of the church, when so many persons were 
forced by her decisions to change their construction, and 
others were expelled because they refused to do so. It 
is difficult, I apprehend, to reconcile the strong and clear 
commands of Christ, of St. Paul, and of the Council of 
Jerusalem, with the alleged right of private interpre- 
tation in the last resort. 

The following passages are most usually relied upon : 

1. "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye 
have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me." 
(John V, 39.) 

2. " These were more noble than those of Thessa- 
lonica, in that they received the word with all readiness 



INFALLIBILITY 



99 



of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether 
these things were so." (Acts xvii, ii.) 

3. " BeHeve not every spirit, but try the spirits 
whether they are of God." (I John iv, i, 7.) 

4. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, 
but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." (II 
Cor. I, 24.) 

5. " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, 
that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and 
it shall be given to him." (James i, 5.) 

6. " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
is profitable," etc. (II Tim. iii, 14, 16.) 

The ground taken by Protestants is, substantially, that 
these texts establish two points : 

1. That individuals were allowed to read the Scrip- 
tures, and were commended for so doing. 

2. That as they were permitted to read, of course 
they were permitted to construe. 

Conceding, for the sake of the argument only, that 
the teaching authority of the Church, in the days of the 
apostles, permitted the lay members to read or hear the 
Scriptures as one means of instruction, then the essence 
of the objection is, that the right of the church to con- 
strue the law in the last resort, is incompatible with the 
reading of the Scriptures by individuals. But is this 
true ? The true explanation is this : that the individual 
construes in the first instance, and the church in the last 
resort. These rights are perfectly compatible with each 
other, and exist in every system of law. For the very 
reason that the individual, under every system of govern- 
ment, is allowed to construe in the first instance, he is 
not allowed to construe in the last resort. 

The object of the just lawgiver is to place in the mind 



lOO 



INFALLIBILITY 



of the party governed a perfect knowledge of his will. 
The written or traditional code — the words of the legis- 
lator — are mere evidence of his will, which is the higher 
and ultimate object sought by the party under govern- 
ment. Suppose that for this purpose the lawmaker 
places in the hands of each one of his subjects, the 
volume containing his law, and at the same time they 
are informed by him and by the book itself that there is 
a tribunal to construe in the last resort ; is there anything 
illogical or contradictory in this? If so, then all the 
great legislators and jurists of every civilized country in 
the world have long acted upon a very illogical system. 

The great statesmen and jurists of the United States, 
from the days of Washington to the present time, have 
all, with one accord, urged every citizen to read and 
study the Constitution of his country; and yet the Con- 
stitution itself informs everyone that the right of ulti- 
mate construction rests with the Supreme Court of the 
United States. The Senate of the United States has 
had purchased, for gratuitous disposition, some thirty- 
five thousand copies of Hickey's corrected copy of that 
instrument. Now suppose an individual to whom Mr. 
Webster had sent a copy, to have addressed him thus: 

Sir, you have sent for my perusal and study a number 
of Hickey's Constitution; and yet, I find, upon examin- 
ation of the instrument, that there is a judiciary to con- 
strue the Constitution and other laws in the last resort. 
Therefore, for what purpose have I read it? since my 
construction is but subordinate, and not final. Is it not 
absurd to recom.mend a man to read and study an instru- 
ment which, at last, will be construed by another tribunal, 
without any regard to what he has done ? " 

We can well imagine the surprise with which the great 



INFALLIBILITY 



loi 



constitutional expounder would have received this plaus- 
ible, but wholly erroneous objection. 

The Constitution and laws of our country contain many 
plain provisions, easily understood, and some hard to be 
understood, as St. Peter says of St. Paul's Epistles. The 
reader, therefore, can learn a portion, and this will be 
profitable to him. He can learn those plain provisions 
that teach him he is under government; and that while 
he has the privilege to read and construe the law in the 
first instance, the ultimate right of construction is vested 
in the Judiciary. 

Now if there be no incompatibility in permitting each 
citizen to study the Constitution himself, while his con- 
struction is but subordinate and not final, how then does 
it follow that the ancient Christians could not read the 
Scriptures unless they, and each of them, were allowed 
to decide the construction in the last resort? The pas- 
sages quoted, nowhere lay down any such principle. 
They establish the proposition that individuals were com- 
mended for reading the Scriptures. But cannot this be 
true, and yet perfectly consistent with the ultimate right 
of the church to construe in the last resort? The indi- 
vidual could be profited and edified, and yet hear and 
obey the church. They but exercised a subordinate priv- 
ilege, that exists in all governments. These texts do not 
annul the clear and specific provisions of the code, re- 
quiring us to hear the church, and to obey, submit to, and 
follow the faith of them who have the rule over us. 

The practice of the apostles and elders of the church in 
their day, was perfectly consistent with this view. , They 
intended to make the system consistent with itself. They 
did not intend to give commands that were not to be 
obeyed. When we look into St. Paul's Epistles we find 



102 



INFALLIBILITY 



that a large portion of them is taken up in giving his con- 
struction of the code, and his .reasons and proofs to sus- 
tain it; and hence he refers often to the Old Scriptures. 
In these Epistles we find him mentioning certain particu- 
lar errors in different churches, and distinctly condemn- 
ing them. The brethren to whom he wrote had miscon- 
strued the law, and we find St. Paul overruling their con- 
struction. The Corinthian brethren had erred in this 
way. So, the Jewish teachers who insisted upon the ne- 
cessity of circumcision for the Gentile converts, had mis- 
construed the law, and the Council of Jerusalem over- 
ruled their construction, just as a higher Court would 
the construction of an inferior tribunal. 

Christ had appealed to His miracles as proofs of His 
character; but the Pharisees relied upon the Scriptures, 
and our Lord referred them also to those Scriptures, at 
the same time telling them, in substance, that they mis- 
construed them, and that if they would search and con- 
strue properly, they would find that these Scriptures tes- 
tified of Him. But in thus referring to the Old Testa- 
ment, did our Lord intend to say to the Jews that His 
Miracles were no proofs of His mission? He only re- 
ferred to additional, but not contradictory proofs. And 
when the noble Bereans searched the Old Scriptures, 
they did not neglect the proofs that Paul and Silas gave 
them, independent of these Scriptures. So, when St. 
Paul said the Scriptures were profitable, he did not mean 
to say : " You must not obey, submit to, or follow the 
faith of them that have the rule over you.'' Nor did he 
intend, when he commanded Timothy and Titus to com- 
mand, teach, exhort, and rebuke with all authority, to 
ordain and try elders, and reject heretics, that these per- 
sons thus rebuked and rejected, should construe the law 
for themselves, independent of Timothy and Titus. 



INFALLIBILITY 



103 



The quotation from St. John, where he tells his breth- 
ren to " try the spirits whether they are of God," is far 
f-rom being against the view I have taken, but would 
seem to support it. 

The apostle gives his brethren two rules, by which they 
were to test the spirits, to know whether they were false 
teachers or not, for many false prophets had gone out 
into the world. 

1. Every spirit that confessed that Jesus Christ had 
come in the flesh was of God, and every one that denied 
it was not of God. 

2. " He that knoweth God heareth us : he that is not 
of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of 
truth and the spirit of error." 

The spirit that confessed Christ was a true spirit; and 
the test, as to whether a particular individual confessed 
Christ, was the fact whether he heard the apostles or not. 
This was saying, in substance, that the false prophets, 
were they who refused to hear the church ; for when 
they refused to hear the proper organs of the church, 
they refused to hear the Church itself. This was a very 
simple test by which to detect these false prophets. The 
apostle first tells his brethren what they must do, and 
then tells them how they can do it. So the apostle Paul, 
when he commanded the Corinthians to speak the same 
thing, and be united in the same judgment, tells them to 
submit themselves to those of the house of Stephanas, 
and to all such. 

The fourth extract, where St. Paul says he had not 
dominion over the faith of his brethren, was intended 
simply to state that that apostle acted in a subordinate 
capacity, and not in his own right. Dominion is defined 
to be "sovereign or supreme authority." (Webster). 
No one could have dominion over faith but God. The 



104 



INFALLIBILITY 



right of a subordinate officer to decide the proper con- 
struction of the law, and to say what was faith as defined 
by it, does not give him dominion over the faith. To 
have dominion over faith is to say what it shall be, not 
what it is. It is the power to create, not the power 
simply to declare. The apostle certainly did not assume 
to create faith, while he as certainly did assume the right 
to declare what was, and what was not, of faith. He did 
not mean to say to these same brethren, whose errors of 
construction he had expressly condemned in his first 
Epistle, that he had usurped authority not granted to 
him. 

In the fifth extract the apostle tells those of his breth- 
ren who lack wisdom, how they can obtain it. 

The prayer of faith is, no doubt, one means of obtain- 
ing Christian wisdom ; but it is not the only means pointed 
out in the law, and is not exclusive of those other means 
mentioned in other portions of the Written Word. The 
existence of this means is not incompatible with the 
existence of the others. It is said in one place that we 
are saved by faith; in another, by baptism; in another 
still, by grace. One does not exclude the others. We 
must put them all together, and give force and effect to 
all, so that all may stand, and the will of the lawmaker 
be consistently carried out in all things, as He unques- 
tionably intended to accomplish some good purpose by 
each and all. The apostle James did not intend to contra- 
dict his own practice in the Council of Jerusalem, nor 
the command of Christ to hear the church, nor those of 
St. Paul to obey the rulers of the church, nor those of 
St. Peter to follow their under-shepherds, nor the test 
given by St. John, that they who heard not the rulers of 
the Church were false prophets. 

In reference to the sixth passage, it will readily be seen 



INFALLIBILITY 



105 



that it does not at all conflict with the ultimate right of 
the church to construe the code for all. The Scriptures 
may be profitable to the individual reader, who is allowed 
to construe in the first instance. A very large portion of 
them is taken up in the simple relation of the most touch- 
ing incidents connected with God's early dealings with 
His Chosen people — of signal displays of mercy, and the 
infliction of punishment. There are numerous biographi- 
cal sketches, (or history teaching by example) of re- 
nowned and faithful servants of God. The New Testa- 
ment contains the simple narrative of the birth, life, death, 
and resurrection of our Saviour, and the history of the 
labors and sufferings of the early saints. Besides the 
historical portions, there are many plain and simple com- 
mands, and many edifying instances of faith and humil- 
ity. But after all the plain portions of the Written 
Word, there are some things hard to be understood that 
must still be understood. 

If we take the Scriptures as construed by each individ- 
ual for himself in the last resort, as the sole way, then 
the inexorable rules of logic require us to assume, that 
the Scriptures are plain and easily understood by all of 
every grade of capacity. This crippling and mutilating 
theory does the utmost injustice to the lawgiver, by for- 
getting that his code must be complete, while the way is 
plain. The system must attain the great, and extensive 
and perfect ends sought; and this cannot be done by a 
code containing so few and so simple provisions, as to be 
perfectly plain to all unaided capacities, under all cir- 
cumstances. The code must be complete by containing 
all the provisions necessary to reach the perfect ends 
sought ; and this cannot be done except by the aid of an 
infallible tribunal. 

To assume that a supernatural system should contain 
9 



INFALLIBILITY 



nothing but plain truths, equally within the unaided reach 
of all, is substantially to assume that God could not re- 
veal any high and sublime truths to man, and that his 
revealed law could contain no mysteries. On the con- 
trary, it would seem plain to good sense, that if God made 
any direct revelation to mankind, He would reveal many 
truths of so sublime a character, as to fill and test the 
highest capacity of the human mind; not only for the 
purpose of giving us some idea of the character of in- 
finite wisdom, but some conception of the blessedness of 
that state which is to come. 

The Catholic theory is the only one that makes the 
way plain, while the code is left complete and full, in 
every particular. It makes the way plain, not by muti- 
lating the law, but by elevating the minds and judgments 
of all to the same infallible standard of construction. 

It seems from the reasons and authorities given in the 
preceding pages, that the Christians in the days of the 
apostles, had the same means of arriving at the true 
interpretation of the words in which the law of Christ 
had been promulgated, as the citizens of the United 
States, and of all the civilized governments of earth, have 
of ascertaining the correct construction of the laws of the 
country. 

When the Christians of those days misconstrued the 
law, their construction was overruled by those who had 
the rule over them; and, when the misconstruction arose 
among the teachers themselves, a council was called to 
consider the matter, and their error infallibly cor- 
rected. Nothing could be more consistent and logical 
than this efficient process, founded and based, as it is, 
upon the simplest principles whereon all society must 
rest. When a teacher of science is instructing his pupil, 
he puts into his hands a treatise upon the science intended 



INFALLIBILITY 



to be taught; and yet he overrules all misconstructions 
of the student. And nothing could be more simple and 
reasonable than the question asked by the Eunuch of 
Phillip. The latter had asked the former this question: 
" Understandest thou what thou readest? " The Eunuch 
answered : How can I, except some man should guide 
me?" 

A passage from St. Peter examined. 

In this connection it becomes necessary to notice a 
very clear passage from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 
which seems to be a conclusive proof of the correctness 
of the position we have taken ; namely : that the right of 
private interpretation in the last resort, does not, and 
cannot exist in the Christian system, any more than it 
does or can exist in any other system of law. 

The apostle after telling his brethren that they would 
do w^ell to take heed to the sure word of prophecy, says : 

" Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture 
is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came 
not in old time by the will of man : but holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 

The prophecies to be interpreted were those of Scrip- 
ture. The word " interpretation " is one of the most 
definite and certain in the language. When applied to 
prophecy, it is defined to be, " the act of expounding or 
unfolding what is not understood or not obvious." 
(Webster) So, the word private in this connection, 
i. e. " private interpretation," is equally definite - and 
certain, and must mean " individual ; personal ; in con- 
tradistinction from public or national." (W^ebster.) 
The phrase " private interpretation," would seem too 
plain to be misunderstood ; and, therefore, the apostle de- 
nied the right of interpretation to individual members. 



io8 



INFALLIBILITY 



It cannot be said that the context shows another mean- 
ing; because we cannot resort to the context, when the 
words are clear and definite, and need no explanation. 
But when we look to the context, we can see nothing to 
change the clear significance of the terms used. 

When we look into the whole spirit and drift of this 
Second Epistle of St. Peter, it will be seen that the great 
leading object had in view by the apostle, was to 
strengthen the brethren in the faith — to point out the 
danger of heresy, the character of those who would in- 
troduce it, and how it might be avoided. For these 
purposes, he first speaks of the character of the true 
faith and its blessed consequences, and then gives them 
the proofs of its divine origin, by referring to the testi- 
mony given of Christ from heaven on the Holy Mount, 
and also the testimony of the holy prophets ; and that 
they might know how to use this testimony properly, and 
to caution them against the errors of those he after- 
wards describes, he tells them, " knowing this first, that 
no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpreta- 
tion;" and then gives them the reason why it is not so, 
because it did not come by the will of man, but of God, 
and being His Word, was not the subject of private 
interpretation, as if it were the word of man, but was 
subject to the interpretation of His authorized teachers, 
in the same way as the doctrines of the new dispensa- 
tion, which the apostles and elders taught. 

Pursuing the same train of reasoning, he then tells 
them of false teachers, who privily shall bring in dam- 
nable heresies," that " they are presumptuous and self- 
willed " — that " they speak evil of the things that they 
understand not " — that " they allure those that were 
clear escaped from them who live in error " — and " while 
they promise them liberty, they themselves are the serv- 



INFALLIBILITY 



109 



ants of corruption." How well this description of these 
false teachers agrees with that of St. Paul, where he 
speaks of the " unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, 
whose mouths must be stopped," in his Epistle to Titus. 
The apostle Peter then goes on to say, that his object 
was to remind them of the words of the holy prophets 
and of the " commandment of the apostles " — the teach- 
ers of the church ; and in the close of his Epistle, he gives 
them an instance of the evil of private interpretation in 
those unlearned and unstable " persons, who wrest the 
Scriptures to their own destruction. 

Is not this theory intolerant f 

Is not this theory intolerant? Is it not illiberal? It 
may be so. But was there ever a system of just law, 
or of truth, in the universe, that was not inflexible and 
intolerant? Must that which is true yield to that which 
is false ? How could Christ make any law but that which 
is just? And how could He fail to execute a just law? 
Is He not bound by the irresistible force of His own 
attributes to execute justice? Has he not pledged, in 
advance, His eternal veracity, that not one jot or tittle of 
the law shall fail? How can a lawgiver, after he has 
said, " you must do this, and you must not do that, and 
this shall be the consequence of your disobedience," fail 
to fulfil his word, unless he is not to be beUeved? For 
what purpose is government instituted? Is it to indulge 
and excuse men who will not learn? What sort of sys- 
tem would it be, that had so little truth in it, and so 
little claim to respect, that, after laying down positive 
rules in positive terms for both faith and act, still did 
not require those rules to be believed and obeyed? The 
laws of civil government require every man to know 
the law. " Ignorance of the law excuseth no man," is 



HQ 



INFALLIBILITY 



the fixed maxim of the code. And if ignorance of the 
law did excuse a man, who would care to know the law ? 
The law favors the diligent and obedient, not the idle 
and disobedient. 

When we refer to the laws of nature, we find them 
equally inflexible, except when God Himself pleases to 
suspend or overcome. If a man ignorantly violates the 
laws of nature, he must suffer. It is his duty, his interest, 
his business to learn, and he has the means of doing so. 
He cannot expect to escape, when others do not. No 
man can lift himself above the laws of nature or of truth, 
except at his own peril. 

With respect to the perfect law of Christ, why should 
it not require the same implicit obedience? For what 
noble purpose was this law given, and why is it impossi- 
ble without faith to please God, if the law is not to be 
believed? Heaven being the free gift of God, He had 
the right to fix the terms upon which it should be at- 
tained. He had the right to determine what acts and 
belief he would consider as merit, although they were 
not meritorious in themselves, but only so when judged 
by a system established and given through grace. 

That it is but reasonable and just that God should 
govern the universe, there would seem to be no doubt, 
unless we can deny that He created it. And when He 
makes known His law, and gives men sufiicient evidence 
of the fact, and they refuse to believe and obey, ought 
they to be rewarded for this? So far as the govern- 
ment of God is concerned, heresy is just as much a sin 
as any other, though it may differ in degree. 

There is no illustration more often used by latitudi- 
narians than this, that we are all traveling different roads 
to the same point — we all aim to get to heaven, and 
only go there by different paths. But, unfortunately. 



INFALLIBILITY 



III 



there is but one way mentioned, and he that climbeth up 
some other way is not entitled to enter, because he is a 
" thief and a robber.'' 

God made both earth and heaven, and opened up the 
only way that leads from one to the other; therefore, 
who ever reaches that happy abode, must travel this 
provided way. 

Is not that theory of mere apparent mercy, in itself, the 
most delusive cruelty? There is nothing, perhaps, in 
this world, that has done more injury than mistaken 
mercy. 

The jury that acquits the guilty culprit, through mis- 
taken sympathy, and turns him again loose upon society, 
commits a cruel act. It is mercy to the guilty, and cru- 
elty to the innocent. It is a confusion of all just dis- 
tinctions, or rather, a reversal of all just distinctions. 

To assume that the way to heaven is wider than it 
really is, must be the greatest of all mistakes. It is cer- 
tain that such assumption, however flattering to our pride 
and vanity, will not widen the way, in fact. It for- 
ever remains as narrow as before, and the same predic- 
tion still inexorably exists, " few there be that find it." 
The more men are taught to believe that Christianity 
consists mainly in good conduct, and not in both faith 
and workSj the more faith is degraded from its due im- 
portance in the system, and the more God is robbed of 
the homage due to Him, and the more infidelity and dis- 
union are encouraged and propagated. It is a very flat- 
tering and insinuating, but delusive thought, that Chris- 
tian perfection consists mostly of good conduct that 
we can believe almost anything — that there are numer- 
our roads to heaven, suited to the convenience, preju- 
dices, and tastes of different travelers — that God not 
only gave His only Son to die for us, but has given us 



112 



INFALLIBILITY 



a wide latitude of belief, and made so great a variety 
of ways to heaven that all can be suited. 

It must be obvious to the reflective mind, that if a 
system of religion require faith at all, it is just as rational 
to require it as to all, as to a part. The system de- 
pends entirely upon the right and authority of him who 
founds it. When established by God, His authority is 
conclusive. All we desire to know is His will. This 
must be obeyed. It is, then, just as reasonable that we 
should all be required to believe the same things, and join 
the same Church, as to believe any other article of faith, 
or do any other act required by the law. These re- 
quirements are not unreasonable, but are logical and 
sensible in the very nature of Christ's one kingdom. 

A logical, united, and exclusive system is more like 
truth, will always prove the greatest ultimate results, 
and is, for that reason, the best humanity at last. If a 
man can be made to believe that he can be saved almost 
anywhere, with almost any sort of faith, he naturally be- 
comes indifferent to a theory that is indifferent to itself. 
He consults his tastes, and mere personal partialities, and 
joins those whom he likes best as friends and neighbors 
Religion, with him, becomes a secondary consideration. 
It sinks down in his estimation, and ceases to command 
his genuine reverence and respect. A chameleon theory, 
and a gum-elastic conscience, are equally inconsistent 
with truth and justice. 

Another reflection is this — that wherever the limits 
are fixed, they must, from the nature of this permanent 
system, have been so fixed at the beginning, and must 
so continue unto the end. Whatever was required to 
be believed at the beginning, must be required to be be- 
lieved now and at all future times. The limits of faith 
cannot be extended or contracted, so as to suit this or 



INFALLIBILITY 



113 



that one; for if this were done from time to time, there 
would soon be but the shadow, and not the substance of 
faith left. 

This exclusive and rigid system is the Catholic. It 
is based upon the idea that Christ never did establish but 
one church, and that the visible — that more than one 
true church never was, and never could be required, 
and was never contemplated by the Divine Founder of 
the institution; and that, as a general rule, salvation 
must be found in that one church. The theory admits 
one exception (made by the law itself) in the case of in- 
vincible ignorance, where a baptized person, without 
prejudice, and with true humility and perseverance, has 
faithfully sought for the entire truth, and, for want of 
opportunity, has failed to find it. 



CHAPTER V 



THE PRIMACY OF SAINT PETER 

The executive power must exist in the visible church. 

If we concede that Christ was a Divine Lawgiver, Who 
prescribed a fundamental unchangeable law for the prac- 
tical government of men while in this state of being, we 
are then forced by the plainest and clearest principles 
whereon all governments intended for men must rest, 
to concede that His subjects were intended to be gov- 
erned in unity, and not in discord. The moment we 
concede the character of Christ as the author of a 
practical system, we are also forced to concede that in 
the government He instituted, there must exist those 
necessary elements, without which government itself can- 
not exist. 

That the executive power must exist in every practical 
government, is as clear, as that the legislative and judi- 
cial powers are required. We can as readily conceive 
of a government without the legislative, as without the 
executive and judicial powers. There cannot be a law 
prescribed without legislation, nor can it be a law at all 
unless intended to constitute a rule for the parties gov- 
erned; and it cannot be a rule, unless intended to be 
practically administered; and this practical administra- 
tion cannot be attained, unless the executive and judicial 
powers both exist in the system. I cannot form a con- 
ception of a visible association of men, governed by a 

114 



THE PRIMACY 



115 



positive unchangeable law, without the existence of the 
executive and judicial powers placed somewhere in the 
institution. Nor can I conceive of any practical and 
efficient system of government, wherein the executive 
and judicial powers are not co-extensive with the actual 
exercise of the power of legislation. In other words, 
where the executive and judicial powers do not have 
jurisdiction to enforce, practically, all the laws intended 
for practical application; for if these powers exist in the 
system at all, then for what purpose do they exist but 
to enforce all those portions of the law intended to be 
put in practical operation? 

If the position be true, that the executive power exists 
in the system of Christ, that power must have been placed 
somewhere, either in the hands of an individual and his 
successors, or in the hands of several. The Catholic 
theory holds that our Lord conferred this power upon a 
single individual and his successors. 

" The idea of supremacy," says Cardinal Wise- 
man, " involves two distinct, but closely allied, preroga- 
tives : the first is that the Holy See is the center of unity ; 
the second, that it is the fountain of authority. By the 
first is signified that all the faithful must be in commun- 
ion with it, through their respective pastors, who form an 
unbroken chain of connection from the lowliest member 
of the flock, to him who has been constituted its univer- 
sal shepherd. 

We likewise hold the Pope to be the source of au- 
thority; as all the subordinate rulers of the church are 
subject to him, and receive directly, or indirectly, their 
Jurisdiction from and by him. Thus the executive power 
is vested in his hands for all spiritual purposes " within 
her ; to him is given the charge of confirming his brethren 
in the faith ; his office is to watch over the correction of 



ii6 



THE PRIMACY 



abuses, and the maintenance of discipline throughout the 
church; in case of error springing up in any part, he 
must make the necessary investigation to discover it and 
condemn it; and either bring the refractory to submis- 
sion, or separate them, as withered branches, from the 
vine. In cases of great and influential disorder in faith 
or practice, he convenes a general council of the pas- 
tors of the Church; presides over them in person, or 
by his legates; and sanctions, by his approbation, its 
canons or decrees. * * * 

" The supremacy which I have described is of a charac- 
ter purely spiritual, and has no connection with the posses- 
sion of any temporal jurisdiction. The sovereignty of 
the Pope over his own dominions is no essential portion 
of his dignity; his supremacy was not the less before 
it was acquired: and should the unsearchable decrees of 
Providence, in the lapse of ages, deprive the Holy See 
of its temporal sovereignty, as happened to the seventh 
Pius, through the usurpation of a conqueror, its domin- 
ion over the Church and over the consciences of the 
faithful, would not be thereby impaired." (Morefield 
Lectures, p. 226.) 

The scriptural proofs of the primacy of St. Peter 
examined. 

The first passage which bears upon this question, is 
taken from the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, verse 
42 : " And when Jesus beheld him he said, thou art Si- 
mon the son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas, which 
is by interpretation, a Stone." According to the Douay 
Bible, " thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted 
Peter." 

In his work upon the primacy of St. Peter Bishop 



THE PRIMACY 



117 



Kenrick says that Cephas is a Syro-Chaldaic term, which 
signifies rock. (p. 24.) 

It had been a practice with God, on particular oc- 
casions, to change the names of his servants when be- 
stowing upon them some signal pre-eminence. For ex- 
ample, when God made a great covenant with Abram, 
he changed his name to Abraham, and that of his wife 
from Sarai to Sarah. So, when Jacob wrestled with the 
angel and refused to let him go without a blessing, the 
angel blessed him and said : " Thy name shall be called 
no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou 
power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." 
(Gen. xvii, 5-15; xxxiii, 28-29.) The moment Christ 
saw Simon he said, " thou shalt be called Cephas." 

It would seem clear that Christ had some important 
object in view, when He gave Peter his name, which is 
not mentioned at the time it was given. But it does not 
matter when or where the reason for the change of name 
is given, so it is given. 

In the sixteenth chapter of St. ]\Iatthew's Gospel we 
have the explanation; 

"He saith unto them. But w^iom say ye that I am? 
And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered 
and said unto him. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: 
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
my father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, 
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven: and whatever thou shalt loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven." 



ii8 



THE PRIMACY 



It must be conceded that this is one of the most em- 
phatic passages to be found in the four Gospels, and 
must teem with meaning of the greatest importance. 

The first question that gives rise to a difference of 
opinion, is whether Peter is the rock upon which the 
Church was to be founded. Many Protestant authors 
concede that he was, while others contend that the truth 
revealed to Peter was alluded to by our Lord as " this 
rock." All Catholic writers, whose works I have read, 
insist that the clear meaning of the passage is, as if 
written, " Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will 
build my church." Mr. Campbell, in his debate with 
Bishop Purcell, p. 84, gives this reading : " Thou art 
stone, and upon this rock (on this great truth which flesh 
and blood has not revealed to thee) I will build my 
church." 

There are circumstances which seem clearly to refute 
the interpretation of Mr. Campbell. 

Our Lord had previously given Simon the surname of 
Peter, without giving him any reason for it; and now, 
in the commencement of His reply, He simply calls him 
Simon Bar-Jona, and then gives him the reason why 
he is blessed, because the Father had revealed to him 
this great truth. Then following the blessing, and the 
reason given for it, our Lord uses that most emphatic 
affirmation : " And I say also unto thee, that thou art 
Peter." When our Lord first called him Cephas, His 
language was not so emphatic. It was simply " thou 
shalt be called Cephas." 

Now for what purpose and for what intent, did our 
Lord use this emphatic language? The phrase is too 
emphatic to be idle and meaningless. Besides, our Lord 
never did an idle thing. He must have had some end 
to signify. What was it? I could never find a Protest- 



THE PRIMACY 



119 



ant writer who could give any plausible reason for the 
use of that emphatic statement. That thou art Peter," 
and yet deny that he was the rock. What conceivable 
purpose could Christ have had in view, but to make 
that statement the basis of that which immediately 
followed — " and upon this rock I will build my 
church ? " 

The true and simple view of this passage would seem 
to be this: Our Lord, at the beginning, gave Simon 
his surname, without stating to him any reason for the 
act. God, the Father, afterwards reveals to Peter the 
Divinity of Christ. Our Lord called out the confession 
of Peter, not that He needed to be informed of the facts 
inquired after, but for the purpose of affording Him 
a fitting opportunity of constituting Peter the founda- 
tion of the Church. Peter had been favored by a special 
revelation, and our Lord knew this fact. When Peter 
had confessed our Lord reaffirmed the name Peter, for 
the purpose of letting him know that he was not only 
a rock, but the rock upon which the Church should be 
built, and then He states the character of the Church. 

This view gives force and effect to every part of the 
reply of our Lord to Peter, and does not leave the em- 
phatic affirmation " thou art Peter," to stand in such 
close connection with " and upon this rock," etc., and 
yet be idle and meaningless. The very reason why our 
Lord at first only called him Simon, was to reserve the 
affirmation that he was Peter, for the purpose of putting 
it in close and immediate connection with " this rock." 

The opposite construction cannot be true, because it 
breaks the chain of unity running through the whole 
passage. Everything in it has a connection with Peter. 
He is the first pronounced blessed — he is then told that 
he is Peter, and that the Church should be built upon 



120 



THE PRIMACY 



him, and then he is promised the keys. That the prom- 
ise to buiid the church was connected with Peter, is 
further shown from that which follows. Why should 
our Lord continue His promises in this form, " And I 
will give unto thee the keys," etc., unless both promises 
related to Peter? There are three sentences contained 
in our Lord's reply to Peter, and they all relate to him 
and matters connected with him. The first and third 
confessedly relate to Peter. Why does not that in the 
middle have relation to Peter also? If we concede that 
the church was founded on Peter, we can readily see 
why Christ defined the character of the structure to be 
built on Peter. The character of the Church necessarily 
qualified the prerogative of the apostle. The promise 
to build would not be definite, unless the character of the 
thing to be built was also given. So, when our Lord 
promised the keys. He at once states what they will 
enable Peter to do. 

It was objected by Mr. Campbell, as well as others, 
that Peter could not be the rock, because Christ said 
Thou " in the second, and " this " in the third person. 
" To have addressed Peter in the second and third per- 
sons as both present and absent, in the same breath, is 
wholly unprecedented." (Debate C. & P., 94.) 

But with all due deference to the opinion of the learned 
debater, his objection seems more plausible than sound. 
Our Lord first tells Peter that he is a rock, and after 
that, so long as He speaks of Peter under that symbol, 
He very properly uses the third person. But when He 
comes to speak of Peter, not as the rock, but as the 
earthly head of the Church, holding the keys, then our 
Lord uses the second person. I cannot see any violation 
of correct usage in this ; but the use of the third person 
in one case, and of the second in the other, was in strict 



THE PRIMACY 



121 



accordance with the figure used by Christ. Having first 
declared Peter a rock, so long as He kept that symbol in 
His eye, He would regard him in that light, and speak of 
him accordingly. The interpreter of a dream, of a para- 
ble first tells you that he will give the interpretation, and 
after that he proceeds to use language in a positive form 
— " the reapers are the angels," " the harvest is the end 
of the world." 

" Bloomfield," says Bishop Kenrick, " a recent Angli- 
can commentator, observes that everj modern expositor 
of note has abandoned the distinction between Peter 
and rock as untenable. Bishop Marsh, quoted by him, 
says that ' it would be a desperate undertaking to prove 
that Christ meant any other person than Peter.' Rosen- 
muller, the German rationalist, coincides in this critical 
judgment: * The rock,' says he, 'is neither the confes- 
sion of Peter, nor of Christ pointing out Himself by 
His finger, or by a shake of the head (which interpreta- 
tions the context does not admit), but Peter himself." 
(The Primacy, 29.) 
The learned author says on the next page: 
" In ' Gerhard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism,' is con- 
tained the following just observation — Canon 511: 
' The most obvious and natural sense is to be set aside 
only when it is absolutely contradictory to something 
plainly taught in Scripture.' He then remarks that ' the 
opposite way has been taken by all sects ' ; and, quoting 
the i8th verse of the i6th chapter of St. Matthew, ob- 
serves : ' Building on Peter is explained, by some, as 
contrary to the faith that Christ is the only foundation, 
(I Cor. iii, 12), and as favoring the succession of Peter 
and his successors; but the connection shows that Peter 
IS HERE PLAINLY MEANT.' Such is the language 
of this text-book of so many Protestant colleges and 
10 



122 



THE PRIMACY 



theological institutions, both in this country and in Eng- 
land." 

Mr. Thompson of Glasgow, in his Monatessaron, con- 
cedes that " Peter was the rock on which Christ said His 
church should be built." The same author states that 
" Protestants have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have, 
therefore, used all the HARDIHOOD OF LAWLESS 
CRITICISM in their attempts to reason away the Cath- 
lic interpretation." (Cited in the Primacy, 31.) 

It has been often objected, as it was by Mr. Campbell 
(Debate C. & P., 95), that Peter could not be the rock 
upon which the Church was built, because this would be 
a contradiction of other portions of Scripture. In the 
third chapter of first Corinthians it is said : " For other 
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ." And in the second chapter of Ephesians the 
apostle says, alluding to the faithful : " And are built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone." 

The term foundation has several meanings, one of 
which is " the basis of an edifice ; that part of a building 
which lies upon the ground, usually a wall of stone which 
supports the edifice." (Webster.) 

It is evident that the apostle used the word with ref- 
erence to this sense, as he speaks of foundations as hav- 
ing been laid. And were we to adopt the principles of 
criticism urged by Mr. Cam.pbell, we should make the 
apostle contradict himself; because, in the first extract 
the apostle speaks of Christ as the foundation, and does 
not mention that apostles and prophets composed it in 
part as he does in the second. I am not aware of any 
text in which our Lord was ever spoken of as constitut- 
ing the foundation, in whole or in part, that does not 
speak with reference to a foundation laid, not selected. 



THE PRIMACY 



123 



The term has another and a wider signification, which 
is " the basis or ground work of any thing ; that on which 
anything stands and by which it is supported." (Web- 
ster.) A rock is " a large mass of stony matter, either 
bedded in the earth, or resting upon its surface. "(Web- 
ster.) A rock, upon which a building is based, is 
bedded in the earth." It was with reference to this 
sense, that Peter was called the rock. Our Lord, when 
He spoke of building His church upon a rock, used the 
word rock in the same sense He did when speaking of 
the wise man, whose house " fell not : for it was founded 
on a rock." That must be a foundation upon which an 
edifice is founded. 

The scriptural proofs further considered. 

If we concede that Peter was the rock, then we con- 
cede that he was superior to the other apostles, who were 
not the rock, but only a part of the foundation as laid by 
Christ. In what then did this superiority consist? The 
Catholic theory holds that superior official power was 
conferred on this great apostle. This is denied by 
Protestants; and the most plausible ground that can be 
taken (after conceding that Peter was the rock) to de- 
feat the Catholic construction, is that the promise to 
build the church on Peter, was fulfilled by his being the 
first sent to convert both Jews and Gentiles, so that in 
some sense, the Church might be said to rise from him. 

But this explanation would seem to be entirely too 
narrow, and in conflict with the plain and obvious figure 
used by Christ. It would seem to be about as errone- 
ously restrictive, as that narrow construction which 
sought to confine salvation alone to the Jews, when the 
wide commission was, " Go teach all nations " — 
" Preach the Gospel to every creature." 



124 



THE PRIMACY 



The rock upon which an edifice is built, is contem- 
plated as continuing in the same permanent state it was 
in, at the precise time when the building was erected. 
If we say that our Lord first created the office of Su- 
preme head of the Church on earth, as He did the office 
of teacher in the commission, and afterwards addressed 
Peter in his official capacity, then we can see how Peter 
could be appropriately called the rock upon which the 
church was built. The power and effect of the office 
would always be the same as at the first, and the Church 
might well rest upon it. The Church was regarded by 
Christ as a permanent structure, and the rock or- founda- 
tion upon which it is built, must have been viewed by 
Him as equally continuing. The permanency of one 
must have been commensurate with that of the other. 

That this is the correct view would seem to be clear 
from the fact, that the stability of the Church is but 
the consequence of this foundation. When our Lord 
said the foolish man built his house upon the sand and it 
fell, we must conclude that it fell because of the inse- 
curity of the foundation. This conclusion is shown to 
be correct from the fact, that when our Lord spoke of 
the wise man who built his house upon a rock, He said 
"it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." (Matt, 
vii, 25.) Here the cause of the stability of the house 
was its rock foundation. So, when Christ says, and 
on this rock I will build by church, and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it," the relation of the 
structure to the foundation is so close, that we must say 
the stability of the building is the consequence of the 
stability of the foundation. Christ made Peter the rock, 
and the stability of the rock came from Christ, its 
Creator. 

Our Lord gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom, 



THE PRIMACY 



125 



and the consequence of this possession of the keys of 
the entire kingdom was the Supreme power to 
bind and loose. In other words, the power to 
bind and loose was but a consequence flowing from the 
keys of the entire kingdom, and was a power supreme 
over all. Observe the clear and explicit language of 
our Lord : And I will give unto thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on 
earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven." 

The delivery of keys has always been a symbol of su- 
preme command. (See Rev. iii, 7.) In the 22nd chap- 
ter of Isaiah, God, speaking of His Son, says : " And 
I will commit my government into His hands * * * 
and the key of the house of David will I lay upon His 
shoulder: so he shall open, and none- shall shut; and 
he shall shut, and none shall open." So, in the first 
chapter of Revelations, the keys mentioned in verse 18, 
were symbols of supreme command. So, at law, where 
the delivery of personal property is necessary to pass the 
title, the delivery of the key of the warehouse in which 
the goods are stored, is a symbolical delivery which is 
regarded as equivalent to an actual delivery, and passes 
the command of the property to the purchaser. 

This is so in the usage of all nations. In the very 
nature of the symbol it can mean nothing else. The de- 
livery of the keys of a fortress or walled city to a con- 
queror is a surrender of the same into his possession. 
This very act yields up the command of the place by one 
party, and passes it to the other. When, therefore, our 
Lord gave Peter the keys of His kingdom, what else 
could He mean, but to give him, to whom He committed 
the keys, the supreme command? And that our Lord 
created an office by this act, would also seem clear. His 



126 



THE PRIMACY 



system itself was permanent. The gates and keys of 
this kingdom were part of this permanent kingdom. 
There is no Hmitation put to the duration of this power 
in this permanent kingdom, any more than there is to 
the office of President of the United States, in our Con- 
stitution. But our Lord says, without any limitation 
as to the time, " I will give unto thee the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven." 

The kingdom meant is the visible church, whose gates 
require to be often opened, and then shut. Do the gates 
of the city, after being opened for the first time, always 
stand open after that ? And to all persons ? If so, of what 
use are the gates? The very idea of keys and gates, 
presupposes the utility of opening to all who are entitled 
to enter, and of shutting against all who would enter im- 
properly. True, the keys were necessary to open the 
gates for the first time ; but they are equally necessary to 
open and shut, at intervals, through all coming time. The 
prophet said Christ should open and no man should shut, 
and no man should open. Christ was to do both; and 
what He does by His agent. He does Himself. 

When our Lord conferred the power to bind and 
loose upon all. He did not promise them the keys, as he 
did separately to Peter. He was not an idle lawgiver. 
When He conferred a power separately upon a certain 
person. He intended by the very act, to give him a pecu- 
liar vocation, although the same power was conferred 
upon others collectively including the person upon whom 
it was separately conferred. 

This is made clear by the following extract: 

" So, when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, 
Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? 
He saith unto Him, yea. Lord ; thou knowest that I love 
thee. He saith unto him. Feed my lambs. He saith 



THE PRIMACY 



127 



to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest 
thou me? He saith unto Him, yea. Lord; thou knowest 
I love thee. He saith unto him. Feed my sheep. He 
saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest 
thou me? Peter was grieved because He said unto him 
the third time, lovest thou me? And he said unto Him, 
Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love 
thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." (John 
xxi.) 

It is true that Mr. Campbell and others object to the 
interpretation of sheep as bishops, and lambs as laity. 
But while they make this objection, they do not help 
us any by informing us what Christ did, in their opinion, 
mean by this distinction. He must have meant some- 
thing; otherwise the distinction was idle and useless. 
What then did he mean? 

In the tenth chapter of St. John's Gospel, when Christ 
speaks of His entire flock, as separated from the world, 
He simply called them sheep. But when he comes to 
speak of them as distinguished among themselves into 
two classes. He calls one class lambs, and the other 
sheep. 

That this meaning is correct, would seem plain when 
we consider that Christ called Himself the Shepherd, 
and St. Peter afterwards called Him the Chief Shep- 
herd. There cannot be a Chief Shepherd without under- 
shepherds. The comparison of the sheep fold is kept up 
by the apostles Peter and Paul, as we have already seen. 
That the laity are meant by lambs would seem clear from 
the fact that the lambs are accustomed to follow the 
sheep ; and St. Paul tells his brethren to obey, submit to, 
and follow the faith of them who had the rule over 
them. 

Whether this distinction is correct or not, one thing 



128 



THE PRIMACY 



is clear, that the two classes, lambs and sheep, did com- 
prise the entire flock, and they were all committed sep- 
arately to Peter. And this being true, Peter bore to all 
the others the superior relation of under-shepherd, next 
in authority to Christ; and he must of necessity, have 
had superior jurisdiction over those who bore to him the 
subordinate relation of sheep to their shepherd. To say 
otherwise would destroy the unity of the whole figure; 
for the commission to feed is always a commission to 
govern and direct, as may be conclusively seen, by an 
examination of the following: 

II Kings V, 2; Ps. Ixxvii, 71, 72; Ezech. xxxii, i-io; 
Jer. iii, 15 ; xxiii, i, 2, 4; Nath. iii, i8c; Ls. xl, 11 ; Mich, 
vii, 14; Ezech. xxxii, 10-23; John x, i ; i Peter v. 4, 2; 
Acts XX, 28. 

That the whole flock was committed to Peter, is further 
shown by the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. 

" And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan hath de- 
sired to have you (in the plural), that he may sift you as 
wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail 
not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy breth- 
ren," in the Douay Bible, confirm thy brethren." 

It is conceded by all that the pronoun " you " referred 
to all the apostles. Why then did our Lord pray sepa- 
rately for Peter, and, when he is converted, he is charged 
to strengthen or confirm his brethren? We are not in- 
formed that He prayed separately for any one or more of 
the others. 

If this passage stood alone, it could, perhaps, be ex- 
plained upon some other hypothesis. But taken in con- 
nection with the fact that Christ promised the keys to 
Peter, and afterwards committed His entire flock to him, 
both lambs and sheep, the most simple and natural con- 
clusion is that Christ used Peter as His superior agent to 
confirm the others. 



CHAPTER VI 



HAS GOD, BY MIRACLES, ATTESTED THE FAITH AND 
SANCTITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ? 

Preparatory remarks. 

The question asked at the head of this Chapter, from 
the very nature of the case, demands a careful considera- 
tion, or none. It is of the utmost importance, as 
showing one of two very great results : either that 
miracles still continue in the church, or that the 
Church makes the most unfounded and arrogant claim 
to that which she does not possess, and supports this 
false claim by the greatest mass of unlimited fraud ever 
found among mankind; and especially among civilized 
men. For it may be said with truth, to be wholly un- 
paralleled for its extent, duration, and character, in the 
annals of the world. It is then, deeply interesting to 
the Christian, and to the philosopher. For the result of 
such an investigation must satisfy the candid and un- 
prejudiced inquirer, either that God has performed 
miracles as claimed by the Catholic Church, or that man 
is a creature possessing a wonderful capacity to delude 
and to be deluded, while he possesses but few powers of 
resistance, to protect himself from imposition. The re- 
sult of such investigation must teach the patient inquirer 
a great lesson of faith, or a great lesson concerning 
human nature. 



129 



130 



MIRACLES 



The theory of the Infidel, 

Those results legitimately flowing from the existing 
constitution of nature, the infidel admits. All alleged 
special interpositions of Providence, in violation of the 
established order of nature, he rejects. 

In support of these opinions, ^^Iie most celebrated and 
acute of the English Infidels, David Hume, has assumed 
this comprehensive position: 

" A miracle," he says, " is the violation of the laws 
of nature ; and as a firm and unalterable experience has 
established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from 
the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument 
from experience can possibly be imagined." 

The language of this proposition, if taken in its strict 
literal sense, is stronger, perhaps, than Mr. Hume in- 
tended, and does not convey his idea clearly. The 
assumption, as stated, that a " firm and unalterable ex- 
perience has established " the laws of nature, is too broad, 
if taken strictly, for the reason that it illogically assumes 
the falsehood of the question in debate without proof. 
His position, in effect, would then stand thus : " A 
miracle is the violation of the laws of nature, and there- 
fore, no man has ever witnessed it." It assumes, in sub- 
stance, that a miracle is impossible, and of course it never 
happened. 

He who takes the position that a miracle is impossible, 
must assume one of two things to be true; either, i. 
That there is no Creator; or 2. That, admitting the ex- 
istence of such a Creator, in creating the world and 
giving to it and its inhabitants certain properties and 
laws. He resolved in advance, never, for any purpose, 
or any occasion, to interfere, in any manner, with the 
legitimate effects of this order. In assuming the first 



MIRACLES 



position to avoid the possibility of any violation of this 
order, the party must also asstime the eternal existence 
of this order of nature; for if it be the result of chance 
at any time, this same chance may certainly undo what 
it had done. If mere chance could possibly originate a 
system of any kind, surely it could modify or destroy. 
And the same may be said of God. If He created, He 
surely can modify, destroy, or suspend, unless He had 
resolved not to do so. If the second position be assumed, 
that God has resolved, in Himself, not to interfere with 
the regular operation of what we call the laws of nature, 
it being an affirmative proposition, he who assumes, must 
prove it. 

It occurs to me as clear, that although our knowledge 
of the laws of nature may be limited, and, therefore, not 
include a knowledge of all; yet we have a certain and 
positive knowledge of some of these laws, or we have 
no certain knowledge of anything. If we have a certain 
and positive knowledge of the operation and effect of 
the more famiHar laws of nature, under a given state of 
circumstances, then we can determine with certainty, 
when a sensible violation of these known laws of nature, 
occurs under the same circumstances. There is, there- 
fore, a plain distinction between an event merely new, 
and one directly in violation of a known law of nature. 
A miracle may not be new in its kind, because like 
miracles may have occurred before, and may occur again. 
But I do not understand Mr. Hume as intending to assert 
that miracles are impossible. His objection lies against 
the competency of the testimony offered. I understand 
him as assuming, substantially, that, as a miracle is a 
violation of the laws of nature, — and as the general 
uniform operation of those laws has been proven by 
general experience, the proof against a miracle is " as 



132 



MIRACLES 



entire as any argument drawn from experience." But 
does he intend to maintain that an argument, drawn from 
experience, is conclusive and not, therefore, to be re- 
butted? or only prima facie true, and therefore, liable to 
be overcome by competent and sufficient testimony? 

Although the strong language he uses, (that a firm 
and unalterable experience had established these laws of 
nature, and that the argument, drawn from them is 
entire), will bear the construction often given to his 
words ; yet his illustrations, taken in connection with the 
statement of his general proposition, seem to show a 
different intent, and that it was not his purpose to assume 
an argument drawn from experience to be conclusive. 
When a writer is ambiguous, and his language may be 
construed in different ways, the honest and generous rule, 
is to give his language that construction which will best 
support the general scope and intent of his argument. 
Mr. Hume, then, as I understand him, intended to assume 
this ground : that the proof against miracles, drawn from 
experience, is prima facie true ; and that the testimony of 
men is not competent to rebut this proposition. 

If, then, a miracle be possible, it may have occurred; 
and if so, it surely may be proved in some way. The 
existence and operation of these laws are proven by 
human testimony, founded upon human experience; and 
if this evidence is competent to prove the existence and 
operation of a certain law of nature, cannot the same 
class of testimony establish the fact of its violation? It 
would seem that the same character of testimony, given 
by the same beings, would be competent for both pur- 
poses. As a miracle is possible, and may have happened, 
we will suppose for the sake of the argument only, that 
it has occurred. How, then, would Mr. Hume have 
proven it, under his theory? To say that a visible and 



MIRACLES 



133 



palpable fact may exist and be known to men, and yet to 
say that reason and philosophy deny all competent evi- 
dence of such a fact, is to degrade reason and philosophy, 
and would seem to be manifestly erroneous. 

If it be said that the testimony of all mankind has 
proven the existence and effects of the known laws of 
nature, and that the testimony of only the few goes to 
sustain the existence of miracles — and as the testimony 
of the few, is in necessary and direct conflict with the 
testimony of the many; therefore, we must believe the 
many, and disbelieve the few, for we must disbelieve 
one or the other, I reply : that although we are not com- 
pelled to believe the many, and disbelieve the few in all 
cases; still, in this case, the argument would be conclu- 
sive, if it were true, that the testimony of the few, from 
the nature of the case, was in necessary conflict with the 
testimony of the many. But is this necessarily so ? Be- 
fore we can say there must, of necessity, be a conflict of 
testimony in such a case, we are compelled to assume 
that miracles are impossible; for if possible, they may 
have occurred, and if they did occur, they can be proved, 
and if proved, the witnesses are certainly not in conflict 
with any other true witnesses. Upon the hypothesis that 
miracles may have existed, and, therefore, may be sus- 
ceptible of proof, there can be no necessary contradiction 
in the two classes of witnesses. One class proves the 
general rule, the other the exception. And when Mr. 
Hume gives as a reason, in substance, that experience 
has proven the general uniform operation of the laws 
of nature, and the same experience has also shown that 
men will sometimes lie ; therefore, it is more reasonable 
to believe that men lie in regard to miracles, than that 
these laws have been violated, I am constrained to say, 
that he overlooks the fact, that God can only make a 



134 



MIRACLES 



revelation to mankind through miracles — that the prob- 
abilities and reasons why miracles should sometimes 
occur, are as great, if not greater, than those against 
them. For, without going into the subject at large, it 
occurs to me as the genuine dictate of pure reason — 
that as the properties infused into matter, and the in- 
stincts given unreasonmg animals, are so different from 
the laws enacted for the government of rational free 
agents, they must be communicated in a different man- 
ner; and while the effect of properties and instincts 
would be uniform, and, for that reason, not require any 
new and additional interference, the effects of free agency 
would be variable, (though still confined within the 
limited powers of the rational creature), and, for that 
reason, would require the special interposition of the 
Creator at some period or other, and, perhaps, at different 
periods. Mr. Hume also overlooks the fact, that, al- 
though experience has shown that some men will lie, 
under the influence of certain motives, others will not 
under any known temptation ; and that human testimony, 
for that reason, may be credible to the highest degree 
of moral certainty. I believe that London exists, and 
I believe it with the same certainty that I do any other 
of the most certain facts. This I believe purely upon 
human testimony. Now why should I adopt an arbitrary 
rule, and say that a miracle may occur, but there can be 
no testimony to prove it? Did the laws of any country 
ever admit the possible existence of important facts, and 
yet propose to reject all testimony to prove them? The 
facts had as well not exist at all. 

Mr. Hume seems to have become so sensible of the 
arbitrary and sweeping nature of his general position, 
that he puts in this limitation. 

" I beg," he says, the limitations here made may be 



MIRACLES 



135 



remarked, when I say that a miracle can never be proved 
so as to be the foundation of a system of reHgion; for 
I own that otherwise there may possibly be miracles or 
violations of the usual course of nature of such a kind as 
to admit of proof from human testimony." 

Upon which the profound Starkie has these remarks : 

" In what way the use to be made of a fact when 
proved, can affect the validity of the proof ; or how it 
can be that a fact proved to be true, is not true for all 
purposes to which it is relevant, I pretend not to under- 
stand." (i Starkie on Ev.) 

And Mr. Starkie is surely right. This limitation of 
Mr. Hume cuts up his general position by the roots. 
All that he had before said about " a firm and unalterable 
experience," and the " entire " argument drawn from 
it against miracles, is at once unsaid by admitting that 
a miracle may exist, and may be proved by human testi- 
mony. His limitation is like a proviso repugnant to the 
purview of the statute itself ; as if a statute granted a 
piece of land to A, provided such person does not exist. 

The candor and manliness of Mr. Hume must be con- 
ceded, because he conceals none of the consequences of 
his theory, but lets us know distinctly the reasons which 
impel him to adopt his arbitrary rule for the exclusion 
of human testimony. He recommends his readers to 
form a general resolution never to lend any attention 
to the testimony, (for miracles in favor of religion), with 
whatever specious pretext it may be covered." The 
reason he gives is because those who are so silly as to 
examine the affair by that medium, and seek particular 
flaws in the testimony, are almost sure to be confounded." 
(Cited 2 Hay on Miracles, 196.) 

The extent of this concession is certainly very great. 
How distressed must be the condition of that reasoner. 



136 



MIRACLES 



who, to sustain his position, is compelled to shut out all 
proof! But it must be conceded that this system is 
efifectual. It is as much so as the maxim of pirates, that 
" dead men tell no tales." Mr. Hume does not kill the 
witnesses. He only closes their mouths by refusing to 
hear them. His means of suppressing testimony may be 
more merciful, but fully as arbitrary and irrational. 

The best result of my reason and reflection is this — 
that a miracle is possible, and, therefore, not incredible — 
that the question whether a particular miraculous event 
occurred, is purely a question of fact, to be established 
by testimony — that to prove an event contrary to the 
order of nature, requires more testimony, or stronger 
proof, than to estabHsh an ordinary event ; because it re- 
quires a greater weight of testimony to rebut and over- 
come the prima facie presumption against miracles, than 
to establish a general case, in the first instance. He who 
assumes to overcome a prima facie presumption against 
him, must necessarily bring a greater amount of proof 
than he would be required to produce, if no such pre- 
sumption stood in his way. 

The True theory. 

In reference to the true theory of miracles, I shall quote 
the language of Dr. Milner. (End of Con., Let. xxiii.) 

" Methinks I hear some of your society thus asking 
me : Do you then pretend that your church possesses 
the miraculous power at the present day? I answer that 
the Church never possessed miraculous powers, in the 
sense of most Protestant writers, so as to be able to effect 
cures or other supernatural events at her own pleasure; 
for even the apostles could not do this, as we learn from 
the history of the lunatic child. (Matt, xvii, 16.) But 
this I say, that the Catholic Church, being always the be- 



MIRACLES 



137 



loved spouse of Christ, (Rev. xxi, 9) and continuing at 
all times to bring forth children of heroical sanctity, God 
fails not in this, any more than in past ages, to illustrate 
her and them by unquestionable miracles." 

In reference to the case of the lunatic child, when the 
apostles inquired why they could not cast out the evil 
spirit, Christ told them, because of your unbelief." 
But He also told them that " this kind goeth not out but 
by prayer and fasting." 

Nothing, perhaps, could show more fully the efficiency 
of prayer and fasting than this case. No doubt, this 
saying of our Lord, as well as the practice of the apostles 
in so often praying and fasting, gave rise to the practice 
in the churches, of praying and fasting when they asked 
the special interposition of heaven. The case of Peter 
is an example. (Acts xii.) 

I suppose that every Christian will concede that man 

is a little more capable of some things than of others. 

He certainly can judge better of facts cognizant by his 

senses, than he can of the designs of God. He certainly 

can judge better as to the weight and credibility of the 

testimony of his own species, with whom he is familiar 

all his life, and in daily intercourse, than he ca;n of the 

deep reasons of God. If, therefore, he sees an event, 

or it is clearly proven, which he knows is miraculous, 

if he knows anything, by what sort of reason can he 

reject his positive knowledge, for his mere conjectures? 

If a miracle be performed, — the manner — the time — 

the agent — are all immaterial. It does not matter by 

whom, when, or where, here, or there. If the event be 

established by satisfactory proof, it is still a miracle. It 

is matter of fact, and can be proved. If, therefore, a 

miracle be performed in answer to prayer and fasting, 

or at the tomb of a saint, or by his relics, is it not equally 
11 



138 



MIRACLES 



a miracle ? What right has anyone to say that God must 
perform His miracles in a particular manner? True, 
the Jews sought a sign from Christ, but He gave them 
none. The Devil challenged Him to cast Himself from 
the pinnacle of the temple, but He refused. The Jews 
said, " if thou be the Son of God, come down from the 
cross, and we will believe you." But Christ heeded not 
their challenges. 

And was it not reasonable that He should have thus 
acted? Could an infinite being be expected to consult a 
mere creature? Certainly not. It is true, Christ was 
bound to give proper and sufficient evidence; but the 
kind, the time, and the manner, and the amount, were for 
Him to decide — not for the party governed. It is enough 
that He has done right, whether men think so or not. 

In reading the Gospel history, we cannot but be struck 
with the fact that Christ generally, if not always, per- 
formed His cures upon worthy persons, requiring them 
to have faith, and in many instances granting the request 
of the applicant, because of his faith. Thy faith hath 
made thee whole." " Be it unto thee according to thy 
faith." And we are told by Mark that " he could there 
do no mighty work, save that He laid his hands upon a 
few sick folk, and healed them." And Matthew says in 
reference to the same matter : " And he did not many 
mighty works there, because of their unbelief." And it 
was also true of the Apostles. Their miracles were 
usually performed upon worthy objects, except in some 
cases to inflict punishment, as in the case of Ananias 
and Sapphira, and Elymas the sorcerer. 

When I was a Deist, this conduct of Christ, in praising 
and rewarding every confiding display of faith, was with 
me a serious objection. I said: "This conduct is pre- 
cisely such as we must expect of an impostor, as faith is 



MIRACLES 



139 



the very element of his success." But reflection satisfied 
me that there was nothing in this plausible objection. 
And in arriving at this latter conclusion, I adopted a 
rule that I have uniformly followed, and one that I con- 
ceive is just and true in itself. It is this : I first inquire 
if the proposition to be proved is possible. If possible, 
then I take the proposition as true for the sake of the 
argument only, and inquire if such conduct be compatible 
with the truth of the proposition, and consistent with it, 
under the existing circumstances. This rule forced me 
to admit, that if Christ were a Divine teacher, He would 
naturally require faith in the truths he taught; and that 
such conduct was as natural in a true, as in a false 
teacher; and of itself, therefore, proved nothing, for 
or against the truth of Christianity. 

Another reflection is, that the gift of miracles was 
only promised by Christ to true faith. The promise is 
conditional. And it must also be conceded that a man 
may have faith at one time, and not at another. The 
apostles could not heal the lunatic child for want of 
faith, and Peter sank in the waves because of doubt, and 
this doubt was produced by momentary causes. It must 
also be admitted, that the frequency of miracles must, 
in the nature of the case, depend upon the object for 
which they are performed. Therefore, the simple fact 
that they are not so frequent at one time as another, is 
no objection. They may not be as necessary at one time 
and place as at another. 

Another reflection is, that the apostles were chosen 
witnesses of God, as well as teachers. To prove- their 
competency as inspired witnesses, frequent miracles were 
required. In the beginning, when the only question was 
the truth of Christianity, and not which is the true 
church, no miracles could be required to prove this latter 



140 



MIRACLES 



fact. We have no instance mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment, where miracles were wrought by the reHcs of de- 
parted saints ; but we are told miracles were wrought by 
aprons and handkerchiefs taken from Paul and by the 
Shadow of Peter, as also by the touch of Christ's garment. 
True, these appertained to living persons ; but even upon 
abstract reasoning, were that to govern us, it is difficult to 
say that relics could not produce the same result, as the 
saint to whom they belonged is only gone home, and still 
lives, but in a perfect state. But in the case of the dead 
man brought to life by the touch of the prophet Elisha's 
bones, (II Kings xiii.), we have a positive example. 

If, then, the object be to point out and illustrate the 
true church, a miracle wrought by the relics, or at the 
tomb, of a particular saint, would accomplish that pur- 
pose as efficiently as if performed by the saint while liv- 
ing. Upon abstract principles there can be no objection, 
it would seem. As to the manner, or the agent by which 
a supernatural event is produced, there can be no differ- 
ence. The alleged miracles performed at the tombs, or 
by the relics of saints, are just as easy of detection, as 
if performed in other modes. It is no more objection 
to such miracles than it would be to the miracle of Christ 
in opening the eyes of the blind man with the spittle and 
clay, or opening the ears of the deaf by putting his 
fingers into them. The modes used by Christ were 
various. When he wished a piece of money to pay 
tribute, instead of creating it at once, he sent Peter to 
catch a fish, in the mouth of which he found it. 

Doubtless the Jews thought the ceremony of anointing 
the eyes of the blind man with spittle and clay, exceed- 
ingly foolish and vulgar. 

But I apprehend such objections are not entitled to 
much consideration. The satisfactory proof of one single 



MIRACLES 



141 



miracle will answer them all. Miracles afford a fund of 
amusement and ridicule to the unbelieving, the volatile, 
and the unfeeling. But to the sober, sincere, and patient 
inquirer, they will wear another aspect. The Scriptures 
are full of all sorts of miracles, great and small, sublime 
and ridiculous, as judged by some. Many were per- 
formed apparently for very trifling purposes. But we 
know not God's purposes. 

In reference to Catholic miracles. Dr. Paley says : " It 
has long been observed, that Popish miracles happen in 
Popish countries ; that they make no converts." 

I have often observed that when some writers wish to 
state a matter, for which they cannot vouch, and yet wish 
to get the benefit of it, they introduce it in this way: 
" It is said or observed." That it has been so said is no 
doubt true ; but the saying itself is untrue. The state- 
ment is general and simply says : Popish miracles hap- 
pen in Popish countries ; " which means they never 
happen elsewhere. It will be easily seen upon examina- 
tion, whether this statement be true, in reference to 
either particular. And in reference to the specifications 
and historical proofs of the Catholic miracles, I must 
refer to Dr. Milner's End of Controversy, Butler's Lives 
of the Saints, Dr. Hay on Miracles, and the Works of 
Bishop England, having already given to this subject all 
the space I can spare. In the work of Dr. Milner, which 
is easily obtained, the reader will find a condensed, but 
very able enumeration of Catholic miracles, and the 
proofs in support of them, as well as a most masterly 
exposure of the false theories, and misstatements of dif- 
ferent Protestant writers, upon the subject of miracles. 
The work of Dr. Hay is a full and clear discussion of 
the whole subject. In Butler's Lives of the Saints, the 
miracles performed by particular persons are stated. In 
Bishop England's works, a statement of recent miracles, 
and the proofs to sustain them, will be found 



CHAPTER VII 



CAN THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES, SINGLY OR COMBINED, 
BE THE TRUE CHURCH? 

The question at the heading of this chapter, has al- 
ready been considered in part. A few additional con- 
siderations will be submitted. 

While Protestants deny that the true visible church is 
infallible, they generally concede that she is so protected 
by Divine power, that she remains always the true visible 
church, always teaching the true faith. What difference 
can there be between such certain and unfailing protec- 
tion and infallibility it is most difficult to see. Nor can 
it be well seen how the theory of a true visible church, 
always teaching the truth, can be reconciled with the 
right of private interpretation in the last resort. It 
would seem that such a church should be implicitly heard 
when she speaks, as she always, in the contemplation of 
this theory, speaks the truth. 

If the Church should teach error, the gates of hell 
would prevail against her, and the promises of Christ 
would necessarily fail. From this admission two con- 
clusions necessarily follow: 

1. That the true Church could never teach error. 

2. That she must remain visible and teaching from 
her birth to her final consummation. 

It would then seem to be a very plain proposition, 
that whatever existing party of professed Christians 
claims to be the true church, must show a continued 

142 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



143 



line of ancestors to the age of the apostles. Under the 
admissions of all parties, the title to the true church has 
always resided in someone. As we cannot conceive of 
the continued fulfilment of the promises of Christ, with- 
out the continued existence of the same church, always 
teaching the same faith, and united under one govern- 
ment, as was the case in the days of the apostles, so, it fol- 
lows, that the party who claims this identity, must trace 
the title back through the same continued and existing 
association. We cannot conceive how, consistently with 
the nature and purposes of the institution and promises 
of Christ, the Church could die, and be buried, and 
afterwards arise from the dead, in another age, and 
commence her interrupted career again. The Church 
in the days of the apostles, was unquestionably a visible, 
teaching, governing, united association of living men. 
She possesses all the vital elements of continued ex- 
istence. 

The concession of these facts is, in truth, a substan- 
tial settlement of the whole question, as to the Protes- 
tant claims. 

As each party claims the right to the same thing, 
and to be now in possession of it, the weight, or onus 
of proof, will lie equally upon each, in the first instance. 
But as the Catholic Church is admitted to be older than 
any now existing party, she has made out a prima facie 
case, liable, it is true, to be disproved; but until dis- 
proved, must be held good, as against them. She has, 
therefore, nothing to do until the title can be shown, 
prima facie, to be in some other party, extending back 
beyond the period of her admitted existence. As the 
title can only exist in one party exclusively, when title 
is shown to be in one, it, of necessity, excludes all others, 
until the proof is overcome by other testimony. 



144 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



The Protestant sects, at the threshold, are met by a 
very great difficulty. They must appear in some definite 
and certain form. Their claim must be based upon 
something tangible and consistent with itself. They can 
assume any form and shape they please, so it is not mul- 
tifarious and contradictory. But when they do assume 
a certain shape, they must sustain it by competent proof. 
Their allegations and their proofs must correspond. 
They cannot allege one thing, and prove another. They 
can make their alleged true Church consist of any con- 
sistent requisities they please ; but their proofs must cor- 
respond and show the continued existence of a church 
possessing these requisites. 

The question then arises, what requisites shall they 
claim, as making up the true church? If each Protes- 
tant sect claims to be the exclusive true church, it nec- 
essarily rejects all the others. If, on the contrary, two 
or more combine, the alleged true Church is composed 
of multifarious contradictory and independent creeds; 
and their allegations are confused and inconsistent. In 
w^hat shape then, shall they appear? And if the Protes- 
tant Church, thus composed, is still claimed to be the 
one true Church, what differences and discords could 
constitute separate and antagonistic churches? 

And if they conclude to combine two or more dif- 
ferent creeds in making up the Church, then what creeds 
shall be combined? 

If we suppose that the first Protestant party is com- 
posed of those sects, called by some orthodox or Evan- 
gelical, such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Moravians, 
Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians and others, what a 
strange and singular true Church this would be, as com- 
pared with the confessions of all parties ! Different and 
contradictory doctrines — separate, independent, and 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



145 



distinct organizations, with no common governmental 
head, composing the One united visible Church of the 
apostolic day ! ! ! It might well be said of such an artifi- 
cial being, that it was without form and void." 

If there was any true Church in the world, at the time 
of the Reformation, other than the Catholic Church, it 
was the unquestioned duty of Luther and all Protestants 
to join that Church, and not reform it. Could they not 
find it? If they could not, how could others find it? 
And if no one could find it, what sort of a true, visible 
universal Church was it? 

The idea that there was a visible teaching Church, and 
yet that such a church could fail, would seem entirely 
inconsistent with the purposes of its organization, with 
the character of Christ as a Divine Lawmaker, and with 
His actual promises. Such a supposition is based upon 
the incorrect idea, that it was necessary for Christ to 
make a law and organize a Church — that having ex- 
hausted His powers in the effort, or become otherwise 
employed, or for some other reason, He cast the Church 
upon the earth, as a vessel in the middle of the ocean 
without a pilot; and having retired to His apartments, 
He said, " Let her travel.'' 

And the idea that the true Church could teach any 
single error and remain the true Church — that she could 
be reformed in matters of faith — or that she could be 
composed of contradictory creeds, and distinct, separate, 
independent antagonistic organizations, would seem en- 
tirely illogical, and untrue in every particular. And we 
could just as readily believe that mere chance was the 
originator and projector 

" Of all the wondrous worlds we see," 

as that any union could continue to exist in any associa- 



146 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



tion of men, under the Protestant principle of individual 
interpretation in the last resort. And as chance may 
undo to-morrow what it has done to-day, such unity, if 
it should, by the merest possible accident, exist at any 
one time, could never be fixed and secure. 

Taking the admissions of the parties as I find them, 
I am forced to conclude, that the Protestant sects, taken 
separately, or all combined, or in different combined 
parties, have each and all wholly failed in showing any 
title to be called the true church. And before they can 
make any consistent case, they must go back and amend 
their allegations — begin again at the beginning — with- 
draw their admissions — deny that Christ was any law- 
giver — that any visible, universal, teaching Church was 
ever intended — and insist that Christ promulgated no 
law, and organized no church, but that He merely dis- 
covered pre-existing truths, before undiscovered, and 
that, like any other philosopher. He left the truths He 
discovered, to be taught by those who pleased, and in 
the manner they pleased. This theory would at least 
be consistent with itself. 

Have the promises of Christ failed? 

From the reasons and proofs heretofore given, the 
question was reduced, in my judgment, to this — have 
the promises of Christ failed? Is there any true Church 
now in the world? And if it cannot now be found in 
the only Church that can show a continued and uninter- 
rupted existence, extending back to the days of the apos- 
tles, then it can surely be found nowhere on earth. It is 
an institution that was, and is not. 

It was a matter of the first importance, as I conceived, 
to know what powers and prerogatives the Catholic 
Church had always claimed ; for to my mind it was clear 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



147 



that the true Church must always know herself — know 
her duty — know her faith — know her rights — and 
knowing them, must always claim and assert them. I 
could not conceive how the true Church could lie 
against herself, or against her Divine Founder, by deny- 
ing the truth in reference either to herself or to Christ. 

When I hear a Church admit that her creed has been 
reformed, I cannot understand how she can be the true 
church„ If it be in regard to a matter of faith, it is 
quite clear that she concedes that she cannot be such. 
Either she was right at first, or wrong at last, or vice 
versa; and in either case she was not the true church at 
one period of her existence, and must fail in her connec- 
tion with the apostles. And when I hear a church not only 
admit that her creed has been reformed, but that it may 
still need reforming, and under her theory may be so 
reformed, I cannot understand how she can be the true 
church. 

The Church having left the hands of the apostles, 
in possession of the true faith, and united in one gov- 
ernment, it seemed clear that the same church, in all 
ages, must claim, not only a continued succession from 
the apostles, but also to teach the same doctrines at all 
times. If, then, I could find a church extending back to 
the apostolic days, always visible, always teaching, and 
always claiming to teach the doctrines once delivered to 
the saints, this fact, of itself, would constitute a very 
powerful argument in proving that such church was the 
true Church. 

It being conceded that the Church left the hands of 
the apostles, claiming only the faith delivered, and that 
teaching was the end of its institution, the law of rea- 
son would always hold that, prima facie, the Church had 
always done her duty. For it is a plain principle of law, 



148 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



as well as of common sense, that an officer is always 
presumed to do his duty; and he who alleges the con- 
trary, must prove it. The fact that the officers do their 
duty, as a general rule, throws the burthen of proof 
upon him who alleges the contrary. 

That the Catholic Church has always claimed to be 
the true Church, and to teach only the doctrines she re- 
ceived, in succession, from the apostles, is not denied by 
Protestants, during the period of her admitted existence. 
So long as they admit her to have existed, so long do 
they admit her to have claimed thus to act. As to the 
alleged period when the Catholic Church took its rise, 
Protestants are as much divided among themselves, as 
they are about other important questions. In his debate 
with Bishop Purcell, Mr. Campbell at first fixed this 
period at A. D. 1054, but subsequently fixed the time of 
the commencement of the degeneracy of the Roman dio- 
cese, and the separation of the true from the " grievously 
contaminated " Church about the year two hundred and 
fifty. But in his debate with Mr. Rice, some few years 
afterwards, Mr. C. further extended the existence of the 
church of Rome to the second century. Taylor and 
others," he says, " have shown that all the abominations 
of Popery were hatched in the second century." (De- 
bate C. & R., 423.) Mr. Rice says: "During the first 
five centuries of the Christian era, the church, though 
becoming gradually corrupt, did not become Papists." 
(Id., 298.) Mr. Rice, I believe, gives the Catholic 
Church about as late a beginning as any other Protes- 
tant. By the admissions of all, she is at least a thousand 
years older than any of the existing Protestant sects. 
She has, then, an admitted visible existence for the 
period of thirteen, out of the eighteen hundred years of 
the Christian era. The celebrated Dr. Middleton, in his 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



149 



Free Enquiry, as the extracts I have already given will 
show, at first contends that the chief corruptions of 
Popery, as he calls them, were introduced in the third, 
fourth, and fifth centuries. He says that those Protes- 
tant authors, as Tillotson, Marshall, Dodwell, Dr. Wa- 
terland, Dr. Berriman, and others who admit that mir- 
acles continued during the first three centuries unwarily 
betrayed the Protestant cause. After stating that " every 
one must see what a resemblance the principle and prac- 
tice of the fourth century, as they are described by the 
most eminent fathers of that age, bear to the present 
rites of the Popish Church," he says : " By granting the 
Romanists but a single age of miracles, after the time 
of the apostles, we shall be entangled in a series of difii- 
culties whence we can never fairly extricate ourselves, 
till we allow the same powers also to the present age." 
(Cited Milner's End of Controversy, Let. xxii.) 

This, I must say again, is candid and manly language. 
The renowned Dr. Middleton was a man of clear head, 
and too bold not to say what was necessary to sustain 
his case, and make it at least apparently consistent with 
itself. The admission is very clearly made that it would 
not do to admit that miracles continued after the apos- 
tles, for the reason that it would be betraying the Protes- 
tant cause to the Romanists. He insists that the Ro- 
manists must not be granted a single age of miracles 
after the time of the apostles." 

While Protestants deny that the Church of Rome, 
which has an admitted existence from between the sec- 
ond and the sixth century to this time, extended back to 
the very days of the apostles, they have all admitted the 
continued existence of a Church visible and teaching, 
claiming to teach only the doctrines received from the 
apostles, and to be the true church. Thus the Church 



150 THE TRUE CHURCH 

from which the Novatians separated in 250, and the 
Donatists in 311, was that Church, and then contained 
the overwhelming majority of all Christians. 

The existence then of a Church, at so early a day after 
the apostles, claiming thus to have received and thus to 
teach, and to be the true Church, will make out a prima 
facie case, until disproved. Those who deny that such a 
Church was the true Church, and did so teach, must 
then show some other Church that was this true Church ; 
for, since its existence is admitted by all, and one party 
shows a Church existing at that early day, and widely 
extended, claiming so to be, it throws the weight of proof 
upon the party that disputes its claims. When, there- 
fore, we are referred to the Novatians and Donatists 
who not only separated without good cause, but perished 
and disappeared in a few centuries (as if the true Church 
could die), we cannot say the claim is at all disturbed, 
but we must say, it is strengthened, from the failure of 
proof against it. The attempt thus to defeat the claims 
of the Church, having the great mass of Christians in 
her communion, by such testimony, is a substantiation 
of her claim, as it shows no better can be brought against 
it. 

If, then, the Catholic Church could not bring any tes- 
timony to prove her continued existence, back to the days 
of the apostles, except the admissions of her opponents, 
she would still make out her case from them, and from 
their entire failure to show where the true Church was 
before her admitted existence, and afterwards. For un- 
der the admission of all parties, whatever true church 
did exist at the death of the last apostle, must continue 
to exist. Those, therefore, who say the Catholic Church 
was not the true Church, must show some Church exist- 
ing continually, both before and after the alleged birth 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



of that Church. When, therefore, they attempt to do 
this, by referring us to two sects that soon disappeared, 
they certainly fail. The advocates of the Catholic 
Church, bring in all the Christian writers of the first five 
centuries, from St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, 
to St. Gelasius in 492, and from these they bring a mass 
of testimony, that seems entirely conclusive. 

Has the Catholic Church been uniform in her faith? 

The next and most important question that arose in 
this inquiry, was whether the Catholic Church had al- 
ways been uniform in her faith. That she had always so 
claimed, there could be no doubt. That the presump- 
tion, under the promises of Christ, as well as under the 
principles applicable to all governmental institutions, that 
they all accomplish the end intended, and in the manner 
prescribed, would throw upon her adversaries the bur- 
then of proof to the contrary, was to my mind equally 
clear. This position I understood to be substantially 
conceded by Protestant controvertists. They, therefore, 
acting upon this ground, make certain charges of al- 
leged contradictions in the creed of the Church, at dif- 
ferent periods of her existence. 

To examine impartially, and estimate justly, the force 
of these objections, it becomes necessary to understand 
distinctly what the Church herself holds to be faith, and 
what not. I found, upon examination, that the Church 
herself makes these several divisions: 

I. There are articles of faith, which include those 
positive truths, facts and doctrines, which she holds 
Christ revealed to the apostles, and commanded them 
and their successors to teach to all nations, in all days, 
even to the end of the world. She holds that the sys- 
tem of Christianity is made up of certain truths, facts, 



152 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



and doctrines, that must be believed by all, in all places, 
and at all times — that they are of such a character, as 
to be applicable to all persons, times, and places — are 
unvarying, certain, and fixed, and must ever so remain. 
She holds that under the law of Christ, there are cer- 
tain things that must be believed — that faith is required 
by the system, and that as required, it must exist. In 
these, she claims infallibility. 

2. Besides articles of faith, there is discipline, which 
is entirely different from doctrine, and in regard to 
which no infallibility is claimed, and no faith required, 
but only obedience in act. Discipline consists in those 
minor practical regulations or rules, which may vary 
with changing circumstances, and may be adapted to dif- 
ferent times. They consist of such regulations as are 
deemed expedient to facilitate and carry out the prac- 
tical administration of the fundamental laws of the insti- 
tution. They are similar to the rules adopted by courts, 
and liable to be amended or changed at their pleasure, 
and which merely regard the mode, time, and manner in 
which parties must proceed at their bar. 

3. Besides articles of faith and discipline, there are 
opinions. These opinions regard questions concerning 
which Christ made no positive revelation, and the apos- 
tles made no certain declaration. The members of the 
Church are allowed to hold either side, in reference to 
these questions, for the very reason that they are not 
matters of faith. This distinction is not new. The 
celebrated and beautiful saying of St. Augustine, so 
often quoted by statesmen, as well as Catholics, alludes 
to it : " In essentials, let there be unity — in non-essen- 
tials liberty — and in all things charity." 

4. There are besides these, local customs peculiar to 
different countries and ages. These regard not faith. 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



153 



The charges of Protestants against the uniformity of 
the CathoHc Church, may be classed as follows : 

1. Those which relate to the alleged introduction of 
new articles, never held before, being alleged additions 
to the faith. 

2. Those which relate to alleged contradictory deci- 
sions of the Church in reference to the same articles of 
faith. 

In reference to the first class of charges made by 
Protestants against the uniformity of the Church, as re- 
gards faith (and which relate to supposed additions to 
her articles), they are alleged by Catholics to have arisen 
from confounding the definition of the existing faith of 
the Church, with the creation of new tenets not flowing 
from the legitimate extension and application of ad- 
mitted principles, but from the introduction of entirely 
novel and unheard of principles. In other words, that 
" they mistake the language of definition, for the words 
of creation." 

In this late very able work. Dr. Ives says : " This re- 
minds me of an error which, in the course of my ex- 
amination, showed itself continually in Protestant state- 
ments, viz. : to date the commencement of a doctrine or 
practice at the time, when from some denial or neglect, 
such a doctrine or practice was made binding by an ex- 
plicit written decree, although it had always existed in the 
Church." (Trials of a Mind, 124, Note.) 

The importance of these charges, especially the prin- 
ciples involved, led me to make a careful examination of 
the matter, so far as my opportunities would allow. I 
first inquired whether, in any association of men, gov- 
erned by a law promulgated in human language, and in 
which there resided any judicial power at all, these defi- 
nitions would not, in the very nature and reason of the 



154 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



case itself, most certainly occur, in the practical applica- 
tion of the law, to different cases as they should arise, 
in the course of ages. That is, whether these definitions, 
decrees, or decisions, are not inseparable from all prac- 
tical government, over such intelligences as men; and 
whether, from the nature of the judicial power, such 
definitions could be avoided. 

The people of the United States have, as their funda- 
mental law, a Constitution. By this instrument there is 
one Supreme Court, whose duty it 13 to construe and 
apply the laws, constitutional and statutory, to cases 
that come before it. Much discussion arose at an early 
period, as to the proper construction cf certain articles 
of the Constitution. These questions still arise, and 
must, in the nature of things, arise, in all future time. 
Events unforeseen, will bring up new questions from age 
to age, so long as the government shall last. A very im- 
portant amendment to our constitution was made in 
1804; and was occasioned by a very unexpected question 
that arose in the House of Representatives, in the elec- 
tion of President in 1801. " The Election of 1801," says 
Chancellor Kent, " threatened the tranquillity of the 
Union; and the difficulty that occurred in that case, in 
producing a constitutional choice, led to the amendment 
of the constitution on this very subject; but whether the 
amendment be for the better or for the worse, may well be 
doubted, and remains yet to be settled by the lights of 
experience." (i Com., 280.) 

And a concurrence of circumstances may occur at the 
next Presidential election, that will fully test, by " the 
lights of experience," the wisdom of this amendment to 
the Constitution, and such a concurrence may not hap- 
pen in ten centuries, and may then arise. When, how- 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



155 



ever, it does occur, it must give rise to new definitions, 
or new amendments, or both. 

As regards questions of constitutional construction, 
they must hereafter arise in our courts, as well as in 
our Congress. Suppose, then, a new case should come 
up before the Supreme Court, a thousand years hence, 
involving the construction of an article of the Constitu- 
tion, and that Court, by its solemn decision, should set- 
tle the construction of that instrument, could any sensible 
man say that the Court, in the contemplation of our 
system, had created a new part of the fundamental law, 
simply by declaring what that law meant? And could 
any man of fair mind and logical head, say, that the con- 
stitution had not always been what the Court declared it 
to mean? In other words in the contemplation of our 
theory, would the Constitution itself be abrogated, or 
changed in any particular, because that august Court had 
given it a construction never given before, but necessary 
to decide a new case, involving the point in controversy ? 
I apprehend not. On the contrary, it would be admitted 
that the Constitution had always meant what it is de- 
clared to mean; and that such had always been the law. 
The power to declare what is the law — the existing law, 
is very different from the power to make a law. One is 
judicial and the* other legislative — one is the power to 
create, and the other the power to construe that w^hich is 
already made. 

If, then, there be any government at all in the Church," 
the judicial power must reside in the institution — and 
if it does exist therein, must not these definitions occur, 
from time to time, from the very nature of the power 
itself? Can anyone form a conception of an association 
of men kept in unity, and governed by a law communi- 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



cated in human language, through a long course of cen- 
turies, and yet without any necessity for such definitions ? 
I confess I cannot form such a conception. I cannot 
possibly imagine what sort of association, unity, or gov- 
ernment it could be. 

Law, properly so called, is a rule of conduct (and in 
the Christian system, of faith also) prescribed to free 
intelligent agents; and as the parties governed possess 
these characteristics, the law will be violated; and not 
only so, but in a multitude of instances, of the most com- 
plex character. This free agency of the governed will 
enable them to violate the law, and their intelligence will 
allow them to do so, in every variety of form, and under 
every plausible pretence. Hence continued definitions 
become inevitable, under any government of law. 

Did not such instances occur in the days of the Apos- 
tles? And have they not occurred at intervals ever 
since ? And must they not occur in the future ? 

A good while before the Council of Jerusalem was 
held, Peter had admitted the Gentile Cornelius and his 
household into the Church. The true faith had been 
preached over a great portion of the world, and churches 
formed at different places. During all this time the 
question making circumcision essential to salvation had 
not been raised. Had it been postponed a few years 
longer, it would have come up for decision, after the death 
of the apostle. It was never decided, however, until it 
did arise. When, however, it did come up it was finally 
decided and the Council issued its decree, settling that 
case. 

After the days of the apostles, but at an early day, 
the question was first raised, whether it was necessary 
to rebaptize those who had apostatized, and then returned 
to the church. This question could not have arisen until 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



157 



some case brought it up. The persecutions of the early 
Christians, long, bloody, and relentless as they were, gave 
rise to this question. Those Christians who had yielded 
under the terrors and pains of torture, denied the faith 
and sacrificed to idols, and afterwards repented and 
wished to return. Must they be rebaptized. The ques- 
tion was raised for the first time, and for the first time it 
had to be decided. Suppose this persecution had not 
arisen for five hundred years afterwards, and then have 
come up. Those opposed to rebaptizing could have 
said, " We have never rebaptized any one in the Church." 
The others could have answered, " True ; but you never 
had such a case before. This is a new case now first oc- 
curring in the Church. And under the legitimate in- 
tention of the law regarding the sacrament of baptism, 
must they not be rebaptized ? It is true, that the apostles 
never rebaptized anyone ; but it is equally true, that they 
never refused to rebaptize any one. No one apostatized 
in their day, and afterwards offered to return to the 
Church. The case never arose in their day that could 
bring up this question." 

Now the question in such a case regards the applica- 
tion of admitted principles to new cases — cases different 
in their circumstances. All conceded that Baptism was 
a sacrament. The only question was, could it be twice 
administered to the same person under the circumstances 
stated? And it was decided by the Church that re- 
baptizing was not required. 

And so in regard to the Divinity of Christ. Until it 
was denied, and the question raised, no express' decision 
was made by a Council. 

In reference to this point St. Augustine says: 

" The dogma of the Trinity was not perfectly brought 
out till the Arians declared against it; nor was penance 



158 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



until attacked by the Novatians ; nor the efficacy of Bap- 
tism, till questioned by rebaptizers." 

And I confess I could not see how it could be other- 
wise. As I have insisted in a preceding page, law, from 
its very nature, only lays down general principles, in gen- 
eral terms. It cannot, in advance, state all the facts and 
circumstances that go to make up each individual case. 

Protestants, while they make this objection, seem sen- 
sible of its entire unreasonableness; and, in their own 
practice, act upon the principle themselves, though con- 
trary to their fundamental rule. The late divisions in 
the Methodist body in the United States, into North and 
South, in consequence of the different views regarding 
slavery, may be mentioned as an illustration. I appre- 
hend, that if no Methodist had ever been a slave owner, 
the question would not have been determined, as to 
whether slavery was a sin or not. They would have 
said : " Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof ; we 
will determine that question when it comes up." 

And when I came to look into the history of these 
definitions, I found most ample historical proofs to 
show their reason and necessity — that the statement 
made by the great St. Augustine, in reference to certain 
questions defined before or in his day, was true of the 
definitions made by the Church afterwards. These defi- 
nitions were made as often as cases arose requiring 
them, and were only declaratory of the existing faith of 
the Church. And this was shown, not only from the 
express declaration of the decrees, in unison with the 
rule of the church, expressly recognized at all periods 
of her existence, that she only taught the doctrine which 
came down to her without interruption from the apos- 
tles, but it was affirmatively shown by the express testi- 
monies of the Fathers, and historians of the Church, 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



159 



written at various times, in countries widely separated 
from each other. 

The statement made by Mr. Campbell, that " in the 
9th century the doctrine of transubstantiation began 
to be talked of commonly, but was made infallible by 
Pope Innocent HI, 4th Lateran Council," I found was 
not sustained by the facts of history. It was true that 
the 4th Lateran Council in 121 5 first made the definition, 
and first used the word " transubstantiation," as best and 
most concisely expressing the faith of the Church; but 
it was equally true that this definition was brought about 
by the denial of the doctrine by Berengarius, and that 
it had been believed in all ages of the Church, as the tes- 
timonies of the Fathers abundantly show. So long as 
the words, " This is my body. This is my blood " were 
understood in their plain literal sense, it was wholly un- 
necessary to define the faith of the Church. When 
Christ says, " This is my body," it is obvious that these 
words, if taken literally in their plain sense, express the 
entire change of substance. And when these words, in 
the opinion of the Church, are misconstrued, other words 
must then be used to express the idea the Church de- 
cides is conveyed by the language of Christ. There are 
some words that can only be taken in one sense, and 
that sense is fixed and determinate; while other expres- 
sions may admit of different senses. If the Church finds 
her doctrines impugned by those who misconstrue the 
Scriptures, she is compelled, of necessity, to use other 
than the Scripture language (already misconstrued), 
otherwise her decrees would settle nothing. Those who 
had misconstrued the same language in the Scriptures, 
would again misconstrue the same language in the de- 
crees, and insist that the Church had defined nothing, or 
that she had, in fact, confirmed their views. No single 



i6o 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



term, perhaps, could be found, so definite and certain as 
the word " transubstantiation." The words This is my 
body " express the same idea, if taken hterally. For 
when one says this is a certain thing," naming it, he 
does not mean to say, it also contains another and a dif- 
ferent thing. By this form of expression he speaks of 
a single thing, and not of two or more things existing 
together. This single thing may be composed of sepa- 
rate parts, but cannot consist of two separate and dis- 
tinct things, like bread and Christ's body. 

The fact that a new name is given to a thing, under 
new circumstances, is not at all surprising, but is very 
common. It is very natural for men to seek a single word 
to express several ideas, when a frequent repetition is 
required, either in spoken or written language. This 
tendency of common sense towards common convenience 
was very fully shown in California, in 1848, the year the 
gold mines were discovered. At first, when a man went 
out to search for new gold mines, they said he had gone 
" to hunt for new gold diggings ;" but as the same an- 
swer, from the new circumstances existing, had to be 
made so often, some one called the whole operation 
" prospecting," and the term at once passed into general 
use, and so continues. So, in theological controversy, 
it is matter of convenience, to use one term as expres- 
sive of several ideas : It is also proper in such cases, 
to use a term that is alone applicable to the particular 
case, as it is more certain. The use of these new terms 
is not the slightest evidence, that the thing itself has 
changed, any more than the fact, that the disciples were 
first called Chrisians, at Antioch, was evidence that they 
were different from what they had been. 

The word Trinity nowhere occurs in the New Testa- 
ment, and shall we hence conclude that the doctrine ex- 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



i6i 



pressed by the term is not found therein? All such ar- 
guments are based upon a remarkably shallow founda- 
tion, though they are very often used. It must be con- 
ceded that names are not given to things, before the 
things have either a real or an imaginary existence. 
When a new doctrine is put forth, there can seldom be 
found a short known term to express it. The lawmaker 
to make himself understood, must, of necessity, do one 
of two things: 

1. He must coin a new term, or take an old one, and in 
either case, He must define the sense in which He used 
the term. 

2. Or, He must do the same thing in substance, by 
stating in full the particulars that make up the doctrine, 
leaving others to give it a short name. 

. To convey to the mind the doctrine of the Trinity, be- 
fore that term was defined, a number of words was in- 
dispensable. After the doctrine is understood, conveni- 
ence will force parties, even the cavillers themselves, to 
adopt a short term, expressive of all the ideas entering 
into and composing the thing understood. 

The same subject further considered. 

In reference to those charges against the uniformity 
of the Church, coming under the third division, being 
alleged contradictions in doctrine, Mr. Campbell gives 
several instances. In the first place he gives several 
alleged contradictions in the decrees of the Popes. 

The first allegation is that " the Council of Constance 
says the Church in old times allowed the laity to -partake 
of both kinds — the bread and the wine — in celebrating 
the Eucharist. The Council of Trent says the laity and 
unofiiciating priests may commune in one kind only. 
Here then we have Council against Council. In the time 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



of Pope Gelasius it was pronounced to be sacrilege to 
deny the cup to the laity; but now it is uncanonical to 
allow it." (Debate O. & P., 179.) 

The Church regards receiving in one or both kinds by 
the laity, as only matter of discipline — that it is not 
essential to the administration of the sacrament — that 
the command drink ye all of it " was given to the apostles 
as consecrating priests — that Christ is equally present, 
whole and entire, in both species, and therefore equally 
received under both kinds. 

The whole question resolves itself, as I understand it, 
into the doctrine of the Real Presence. If that doctrine 
be true, then it is clear that Christ is equally present and 
received under both species alike ; since His blood can no 
more be shed, and separated from Hi^ body. In the 
early ages of the Church, it was most generally adminis- 
tered under both kinds; but even then it was frequently 
administered under only one kind. Tertullian, St. Di- 
onysius of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Chrysos- 
tom, and others, prove this to have been true. It has al- 
ways, therefore, been regarded as only a matter of 
changeable discipline. Many Protestants as Bishop 
Forbes, White and Montague, of the English Church, 
not only admit the fact as to the ancient practice of the 
church, but acknowledge that the authority for giving 
under both kinds, is rather from tradition then from 
Scripture. So also Cassander and Grotius. In the Cal- 
vinistic Synod of Poictiers, in France, held in 1550, it 
was declared that the bread of the Lord's supper ought 
to be administered to those who cannot drink wine." 
The Acts of Parliament, which established communion 
under both kinds, made it lawful to administer in one 
kind only, when required. (Com. H. & B., 351-) 

Communion under both kinds was not introduced by 



THE TRUE CHURCH 163 

Luther, but by Carlostadius, while Luther was concealed. 
This was in 1521. Luther, in a letter he wrote on the 
reformation of Carlostadius, reproaches him " with hav- 
ing placed Christianity in things of no account — com- 
municating under both kinds, taking the sacrament into 
the hand, abolishing confession, and burning images." 
(Bossuet's Va. B. ii., Sec. 8-10.) 

Receiving under one or both kinds, being a matter of 
changeable discipline dependent upon circumstances, in 
the days of St. Leo, the Manicheans were discovered by 
him, by their refraining from receiving the cup ; and as 
they mixed with the Catholics, and had the liberty, as all 
had, to receive under one or both kinds as they preferred, 
it was exceedingly difficult to detect them. It was for 
the purpose of rendering them wholly distinguishable to 
the people, that an express requisition was made for all 
to receive in both kinds. By this means the Manicheans 
stood manifest. And to show that this discipline was 
not founded upon the necessity of always receiving under 
both kinds, St. Gelasius grounds it in formal terms on 
this basis, that those who refused the wine did it through 
a certain superstition. (Va., Book xi., sec. 12.) 

The statement of Mr. Campbell that in the time of 
Pope Gelasius it was pronounced to be sacrilege to deny 
the cup to the laity," was founded upon the state of case 
above stated, and is not a fair and just statement of the 
matter of fact. For the Manichean to deny that the 
wine was the blood of Christ, was to contradict the words 
of Christ, " This is my blood," as always understood by 
the Church, and was a denial of the whole doctrine of the 
Real Presence. If they could deny that the wine was 
the blood, they could deny that the bread was the body 
of Christ. It was, therefore, heresy in them to refuse 
the wine for heretical reasons. 



164 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



The last alleged contradiction in the faith of the 
Church, made by Mr. C, was in regard to the marriage 
of the clergy. 

In reference to the celibacy of the clergy, I found 
that the Church never held it as a matter of faith — 
that she had always regarded it as a matter of discipline, 
resting in her discretion, and dependent upon circum- 
stances — and that she held celibacy to be a more honor- 
able state, which any one might, or might not voluntarily 
enter into, at his own will and pleasure. As I under- 
stand the views of the Church, upon this subject, she 
holds these distinct positions : 

1. That marriage was a matter under the control of 
each individual. 

2. That it was no sin to marry, and no sin to refrain 
from marriage. 

3. That it was more honorable to refrain from 
marriage, when the motive was the greater service of 
God. 

4. That individuals, male and female, had the clear 
right by a vow, voluntarily made, to dedicate themselves 
to the entire service of God. 

5. That having made this deliberate engagement, they 
could not afterwards violate it without committing a 
grievous offence, by lying unto God, and His Church. 

6. That the Church has the undoubted right to select 
her own ministers, and to judge of their qualifications. 

7. That a body of clergy, who embrace celibacy, are 
more able to give their entire time and thoughts to their 
duties, and for that reason, are more devoted, more 
efficient, in proportion to numbers, and having no fami- 
lies to support, are more economical, and a less burthen 
to the Church. 

8. That for these reasons, the Church prefers those 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



who pledge themselves to celibacy; and so long as she 
can find a number of such, sufficient for her ministry, 
she has the right to accept their services, in preference 
to those who are married. 

9. That when she does so select an individual, with 
the pledge and distinct understanding, that he shall re- 
main unmarried, that he is bound, by all the rules of 
Christianity, to perform his promises faithfully; and 
when he does not do so, she of right excludes him from 
her communion. 

Whatever opinion may be entertained in reference to 
this discipline of the church, it is clear that there is no 
contradiction in her faith, and no violation of her infalli- 
bility. I could not find any proof that she had ever 
held, at any period of her existence, either the marriage 
or celibacy of the clergy, as a matter of faith. Nor 
could I find anything in the teaching of Christ, or of 
His apostles, that made celibacy a sin, or that made mar- 
riage obligatory upon individuals. 

These several charges of a want of uniformity in the 
doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, wholly 
failed to satisfy my mind that they were based upon any 
satisfactory foundation. The great and striking fact, 
that the church had existed for so many centuries — had 
passed through so many vicissitudes — and yet, after all, 
had been so uniform in teaching all that she herself ever 
held as essential faith, was calculated to make the most 
serious impression upon the mind of the patient and fair 
inquirer. For to my mind it did show, that she was the 
most successful counterfeit of the genuine coin, that 
ever did exist, if she were not the true coin itself. It is 
so difficult always to wear a mask — so difficult to wear 
it consistently — and for so many ages. How could 
this be ? Her history was wonderful — her success most 



THE TRUE CHURCH 



unaccountable. In the absence of infallibility, who can 
account for it? What reasonable hypothesis can be 
given ? 

I found that at present her faith was taught in every 
land, among every people — that she had the same creed 
for the rude Indian, the imaginative Asiatic, the dark 
African, the enlightened European, and the practical 
American — that between the frigid zones of the North 
and South, and around the whole world, she had only the 
same sacraments — the same priesthood — and the same 
liturgical services — and the same creed of faith. In 
short, I found her ministers in every nook and corner 
of the accessible earth, and her missionaries in every 
sea. Here in California, where the varied races of the 
earth do congregate, where more languages are spoken, 
than were found in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, 
we find men of all classes, kindreds, nations, and tongues, 
meet around the same altar, partake of the same sacra- 
ments, and though unknown to each other, save by the 
golden chain of faith, are each and all perfectly at home, 
in the same house of the Lord. Is not this as it should 
be? Is not this union? Apostolic Union? If not, 
where, O! where, can it be found? 



CHAPTER VIII 



An objection answered, 

Is the Catholic Rule impracticable? 

The Council of Trent^ at its fourth session, decreed, 
that no one relying on his own skill, shall — in matters 
of faith or morals, pertaining to the edification of Chris- 
tian doctrine — wresting the sacred Scriptures to his 
own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scrip- 
tures contrary to the sense which holy Mother Church, 
— whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpreta- 
tion of the Holy Scriptures, — hath held and doth hold; 
or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fa- 
thers." 

Mr. Campbell says : " Our rule is the Bible alone. 
The Roman Catholic rule contains one hundred and 
thirty-five large folio volumes superadded to the Bible, 
and the Apocrypha." (Debate C. & P., i68.) These, 
he states, consists of Fathers, 35 Vols. ; Decretals, 8 ; 
Bulls of the Popes, 10; Decrees of Councils, 31; Acts 
of Saints, 51 — in all 135. 

Afterwards he says : But the priesthood are sworn 
' to interpret the Scriptures according to the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers.' . . . But how can they un- 
less they examine all these Fathers? And what living 
man has read these 135 folios with or without much 
care? . . . Here is a task which I say never was, or 
can be performed by man." (Debate C. & P., 181.) 

167 



i68 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



Again he says : " The Roman CathoHc rule is exceed- 
ingly unwieldy. It requires a whole council to move 
it, and apply it to a simple opinion. Ours is at least 
portable." (Debate C. & P., 168.) 

The first matter that arrested my attention was a mis- 
construction of the decree. It will be seen that the de- 
cree is negative — that no one, relying upon his own skill, 
shall presume to construe the Scripture contrary to the 
Church, or to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. If, 
then, a member of the Church construe contrary to the 
Church, or to this unanimous consent, then he violates 
the decree, and only then. But Protestant controver- 
tists have taken the ground, that under it, no article of 
faith can be defined, unless there be a unanimous consent 
of the Fathers in support of it. If, therefore, they say, 
one single Fathen is found dissenting from all the 
others, the Church cannot define that an article of faith, 
without a violation of this decree. 

But I must confess in all candor, I could not see 

whereunto this would grow." If ninety-nine Fathers 
state one thing to have been the faith of the Church, and 
one state the contrary, and that in relation to a matter 
not expressly defined by the Church, and a member con- 
strue with the ninety-nine, and against the one, he is 
clearly not guilty of any violation of the decree. In case 
the Church has defined at all, then he must not contra- 
dict her decree. This is the first negative. In case she 
has not defined then the member must not contradict the 
unanimous consent of the Fathers. Both these negatives 
are confined to faith and morals. 

If we take the decree in its strict grammatical sense, 
as Protestants assume to take it, it is only by a miscon- 
struction, that they can deduce the consequences they 
claim to flow from it. The decree does not say, that 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 169 



the Church shall not define an article of faith, because 
a few Fathers may dissent from the overwhelming ma- 
jority of all, if such a case should exist. Nor does the 
decree say that individuals shall not construe contrary 
to the sense of the few, and with the sense of the ma- 
jority of the Fathers. The decree in its terms, relates 
to individuals, and not to the Church. 

If, on the contrary, we give the decree a more liberal 
construction, and say that the word unanimous " must 
be controlled by the general scope and context, and is 
equivalent to the expression " general consent," then no 
such consequences would follow, as contended. In either 
case, nothing but a misconstruction can lead to the con- 
sequences mentioned. 

In reference, then, to the 135 volumes enumerated by 
Mr. Campbell, and the duty of the Priesthood to inter- 
pret the Scriptures, as well as tradition, according to these, 
Mr. C. thinks there is very great difficulty, and insists 
that no man ever did or can read these volumes, " with or 
without much care." It did not seem to me to be an impos- 
sible task. Most lawyers, in the course of their practice, 
read more volumes than these 135. There are very few 
law libraries, that do not contain more than this number. 
And why a carefully educated priest could not, in the 
course of a few years, read these volumes, I could not 
see. 

But while it may be necessary to the Church contro- 

vertist to have read all contained in the 35 volumes of 

the Fathers in reference to disputed points, and also all 

that refers to the same matters in the Decretals, and the 

other volumes, it is not necessary for every priest to 

have read them all, in order to know the faith of his 

church, so that he may know what to teach. 

It must be obvious to any man of good sense, that the 
13 



lyo OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



larger portions of these volumes, from the nature of the 
case, must relate to matters once discussed, but long 
since defined by the Church. The decrees of the Coun- 
cil of Trent, for instance, embrace much the larger por- 
tion of the questions discussed in the Fathers. These 
decrees, with the reasons' for them, make a volume about 
as large as the New Testament. With the aid of proper 
indexes, it is just as easy to find the portions applicable 
to any particular point, as it is for a lawyer to consult 
his library, often consisting of several hundred volumes. 
Besides, there are compilations of the principal matters 
contained in the Fathers. For example, there is the one 
of Messrs. Berrington and Kirk of three volumes, so 
well arranged and indexed, that in a few minutes' search 
all of importance relating to any particular point, now in 
question, can be found. These 135 volumes are intended 
for reference, like the numerous volumes of reports in a- 
law library. If a student of law could be alarmed at the 
number of volumes in any respectable law library, he 
would at once conclude that to be a lawyer, was a task 
" which never was, or can be performed." 

But to say any one who has any knowledge of method 
and system, and how much labor of search can be 
abridged by them, such an argument seems like one ad- 
dressed to ignorance, and ought not to be found in the 
mouth of an educated man. By the aid of a beautiful 
arrangement, we can turn to Webster's large dictionary, 
and out of some thirty-five thousand words, we can se- 
lect any one we wish, and find its definition, in a single 
moment of time. 

But one reflection arises in reference to Mr. C. him- 
self. In his debates and other productions, he has re- 
ferred to, and quoted from, a much greater number of 
volumes than these 135, and no one can tell from the 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 171 



manner in which the quotations were made, whether he 
has read these works or not. It would at first seem that 
he had. But we have a right to suppose that he has re- 
Hed upon the labor of others. Now why Mr. C. will not 
allow the Catholic clergy to avail themselves of the la- 
bors of each other, when they are all authorized teach- 
ers in the same Church, and all equally responsible, it 
is difficult to tell. 

A lawyer, with a library containing a thousand vol- 
umes, will be able, by the aid of his alphabetically ar- 
ranged Digests and Indexes, to give you the authorities 
upon a certain point of law, in a very short time. All 
professional men avail themselves of the labors of each 
other. 

And when I looked into the Protestant rule, I found 
the case, as regarded myself, as still worse. That theory 
told me to trust nobody ; and yet necessity, stronger than 
this rule, told me I must. Under the Catholic rule I was 
allowed to take the true construction of the entire law, 
written and unwritten, from the authorized teachers of 
the Church. The labor was thrown upon the clergy, a 
carefully and thoroughly educated class of men. I was 
allowed to have confidence in some one. But under 
the Protestant theory, I was not allowed to do so, with- 
out a palpable violation of the fundamental rule itself. 
If I took anything upon trust, I gave up, so far, my 
right and duty. God had made my mind the only tri- 
bunal for the construction of His word, according to this 
theory. This word was originally written in a few dif- 
ferent languages. It was my duty not to trust the judg- 
ment of any other person as to the meaning of this 
Word. If I took the translations of others, I departed 
from the theory. I knew translation must come before 
my private construction. It seemed that the translator 



172 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



had to construe both languages. And as I found so great 
a discrepancy in the translation, showing great ignorance 
or unfairness in the translator, or imperfection in the 
languages, or all together (and of v/hich I was not com- 
petent to judge), I could not trust them, or any of them. 
Still I found that " without faith it was impossible to 
please God." In the Catholic version I had found, 
" Hail Mary full of grace," and in the Protestant, " Hail 
thou that art highly favored," conveying to the mind 
very different ideas. This is only one of many instances. 
Who was right? There was great error somewhere. 
Mr. Campbell declared that the faults and imperfec- 
tions of the common version_, were neither few nor 
small." (Debate C. & R., 160.) True, I was assured 
by most Protestants, that the different translations were 
substantially the same, in reference to all material mat- 
ters. But in all the discussions I read between Catho- 
lics and Protestants, and between Protestants themselves, 
I found much disagreement as to the fidelity of transla- 
tions, and much discussion about these differences. 
These parties considered them material. I could not de- 
termine whether they were correct or not, from any 
knowledge I had of the original languages. All I could 
certainly say was, that they were very different. And 
if I took the statements made on other occasions, that 
they were substantially similar, contrary to my own 
judgment, that they were substantially very different, I 
would be taking the matter on trust, just like a CathoHc. 

Admitting I could find a translation that I knew was 
correct, it had to be construed. This, at first, would 
seem to be an easy task. Mr. Campbell, Mr. Rice, Mr. 
Breckenridge, Dr. Spring, and others say so. Still, after 
all that they could say and had said, in regard to the 
Bible being a plain book and easily understood, I found, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 173 



either that they were not men of plain good sense, else 
they would not have differed so widely from each other, 
or there was more difficulty in the construction of this 
wonderful volume than they seemed to understand them- 
selves. And I found Mr. Campbell (whatever might 
be his abstract declarations) " eternally " acting as if he 
did not think the Bible so plain, and as if he was well 
satisfied that he could make it plainer ; for, in his efforts 
to do this, he had written, spoken, and published matter 
enough to make many large volumes ; not as many, how- 
ever, as the 135, but certainly approaching somewhat to- 
wards 'the 35 volumes of the Fathers. All of which he 
thought useful to be read. And as for other Protestant 
writers they were equally convinced, that they could 
improve upon the plainness of the Bible, So certain 
were they of that fact, that the different sects had actu- 
ally drawn up written creeds, much plainer than the 
Bible. Mr. Rice himself stated it as a matter of " fact ; 
viz. : it is impossible to know anything of a man's faith, 
from the mere fact of his saying that he takes the Bible 
alone as his infallible guide." (Deb. C. & R., 774.) 

In my reflections upon this subject, I could not but rea- 
son in this way : " This is a singular case ; a very anom- 
alous state of things. Christ was the most important 
lawgiver, and promulgated the most extensive code in 
the world; for it embraces more matter, and more peo- 
ple, than any other. Yet it is solemnly alleged by one 
party, that this Infinite Lawgiver made no provision for 
any certain and authorized translations and construction 
of His law. He left all in perfect chaos, if chaos can 
be perfect. He made each one dependent upon Himself 
(for a supreme cannot be dependent), and yet He placed 
him in such a position, that inexorable necessity would 
force each man to rely upon the equally uncertain and 



174 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



contradictory translations of different parties, or choose 
between them, without any guide or quaUfication. The 
sense of the most important passage, might depend en- 
tirely upon the proper translation of a single word. Was 
there ever so strange a system? Did a lawgiver ever 
promulgate a code, and organize no association to be 
' governed by it ? If he did so, did he not do a very idle 
thing? And if he did thus organize any association, was 
there ever a case where he left no tribunal to construe 
his law? Was there, in short, such a strange anomaly 
as a lawgiver ever promulgating a code of law, that had 
no system in it? no consistency? no efficiency? And 
does not this theory make Christ the weakest, the most 
confused and incompetent of all lawgivers? What 
beauty, system, harmony, unity or certainty, is there in 
a theory, founded and based in suspicion and distrust of 
everybody but yourself? And it does seem to me that 
the Catholic theory honors Christ as a lawgiver, while 
the Protestant theory degrades Him, as such, below the 
standard of mere human legislators. 

The same matter further considered. 

But Mr. Campbell says: 
It requires a whole council to move it (the Catholic 
rule) and apply it to a single opinion." ..." Ought 
there not to be a general council eternally in session ? " 
(Deb. C. & P., i68.) 

This objection, I found, upon investigation, to be based 
upon an erroneous conception of the practical operation 
of the Catholic system. 

Every Catholic Priest is a subordinate organ of the 
Church. They are carefully educated and instructed in 
her doctrine. They undergo a rigid examination before 
they are ordained. They are immediately responsible, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



175 



each to His Bishop, and each bishop to the Pope. From 
the decision of the parish priest, an appeal Ues to the 
bishop, and from the bishop to the Pope. These are the 
ordinary organs of the Church. 

In the nature of all g-overnments over men, under any 
system of law practically administered, difficulties must 
arise, as I have elsewhere stated, in the application of 
its principles to new cases; and these new cases will 
arise, at intervals, so long as the government exists, but 
with diminished frequency. This must be the general 
rule, to which there may be exceptions, caused by par- 
ticular circumstances. It may happen indeed that a 
great number of new questions may be raised at the same 
time, and that at a remote period from the origin of the 
government. This was the case at the Reformation. 

It is obvious that when a question is once determined 
by the Church, that it is not necessary to call a general 
Council to reaffirm it. It may be advisable, in reference 
to particular cases, when the Council is assembled for 
other purposes, for the Council to do so, in terms still 
more explicit. 

But under the Catholic theory, a general council 
can only be required for the purpose of applying the 
principles of the law to new cases which come up, and 
about which there may exist some doubt in the minds 
of some members of the college of teachers. In regard 
to the question determined in the Council of Jerusalem, 
the difference of opinion arose among the teachers. 
Hence the necessity of that Council. The result was 
harmony of sentiment, and unity of effort. The object 
of calling general Councils is still the same. 

For these reasons general councils are not called ex- 
cept some great question or questions require them to 
be convened. After the commencement of the Reforma- 



176 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



tion, the Council of Trent was convoked. This Council 
went extensively into the various questions raised by the 
reformers ; and the result of its labors has been to settle, 
so far as Catholics are concerned, all the material points 
involved in the controversy. Since that period no occa- 
sion has arisen that called for the convoking of a gen- 
eral Council, in the judgment of the Church. 

In the Constitution of the United States it is first 
provided that the " executive power shall be vested in a 
President;" and yet, in the second section of the same 
article, the President " may require the opinion, in writ- 
ing, of the principal officer in each of the executive depart- 
ments." These " executive departments " are but part 
and parcel of the executive power, which is all placed in 
a President." So it is in the Catholic Church. The 
Pope has the right to control all bishops, priests, and dea- 
cons, and he has the right, therefore, to employ the aid 
of particular agents for that purpose. When the duties 
of an executive become too arduous for him to perform 
alone, he has the right to employ assistants, who only 
act as his immediate subordinates. The Pope, therefore, 
employs the aid of an Archbishop or Metropolitan, to 
supervise the Bishops within certain limits; and Cardi- 
nals are employed to aid him by their counsel and ad- 
vice. As our President has the right to take the opinion 
of the heads of departments, so the Pope has the right 
to take the advice of all bishops, Archbishops, Metropoli- 
tans and Cardinals. The College of Cardinals is the 
most accessible advisory body, because many of the mem- 
bers reside at Rome, and are easily assembled. This 
right of the Pope is an incident inseparable from all 
executive power. No executive power over any con- 
siderable body of men could be practically exercised 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



177 



without it. Almost every officer, under any system, has 
the right to appoint deputies. 

Mr. C, speaking of the Protestant rule of faith, says : 
" Ours is at least portable." 

As I understand him, he means to say that it is much 
easier to read and understand the Bible alone, than to 
understand it with the aid of these 135 volumes. In 
other words I understand Mr. C. to take the ground that 
other Protestants take, that it is easier to get at the cor- 
rect construction of the Bible without, than with, any 
external exposition, aid or assistance. 

It must be conceded that a code of law may be too con- 
cise, or it may be too prolix. So may a discourse, or 
a dissertation. The true medium is difficult to attain. 
He who expresses the greatest number of relevant 
thoughts, upon a given subject, with precision and cer- 
tainty, and in the fewest words, has attained the medium. 

In regard to laws, every judge and lawyer knows 
that the most difficult statutes to construe are those that 
are the most concise, and, therefore, expressed in most 
general terms. Broad principles are often laid down, 
embracing such a wide and varied number of cases, that 
it becomes a very difficult matter to apply these general 
principles to such a multitude of individual cases. Had 
the statute been more full and explicit, its construction 
would have been more easy. In short, whoever reflects 
upon this subject carefully and impartially will, I think, 
arrive at these conclusions; that every system of law 
must embrace all cases that need practical regulation, 
or it must be defective in permitting injustice' to exist 
without a remedy — that this regulation can be effected 
in one of three ways : i. By the adoption of a very con- 
cise code, expressed in general terms, and embracing 



178 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



only general principles. 2. By the adoption of a very 
full and minute code, dealing more in details. 3. By 
the adoption of a mixed code, containing general prin- 
ciples, and also minute regulations. In all these cases 
it is assumed that the codes are consistent in their prin- 
ciples one with another. The mixed system is ours, 
both with reference to the Federal and State govern- 
ments. 

The Constitution of the United States is a very short 
instrument, and can be read in half an hour. One would 
suppose that its construction would be very easy, if there 
be anything in brevity to make it so. Yet how many 
great men have exhausted their powers of construction 
upon the concise fundamental law. Has there been no 
difficulty in this case? Is the proper construction of 
that instrument most certainly attained by reading it 
alone? Or by taking the decisions of our Courts, the 
opinions of our Jurists, and statesmen, together with 
the instrument itself? 

Suppose a lawyer, in addressing the Supreme Court, 
should use this language : " May it please the Court. 
In this case there is involved a very great Constitutional 
question, upon which the whole case will turn. In pre- 
paring myself to argue this point, and in giving advice 
to my client, I have only read and studied the Constitu- 
tion itself. I preferred to go to the law itself to know 
what were the rights of my client. I preferred to go to 
the pure fountain head, and from that uncorrupted 
source, to drink in the clear waters of constitutional con- 
struction. I have not consulted at any time, either the 
voluminous decisions of this court, or of the State courts, 
nor have I ever read one word of what Story, Kent, 
Seargent, and other voluminous writers have said upon 
this subject. I preferred the shorter course, to look 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



179 



alone to the Constitution itself. I have read it over a 
number of times in a day. To read Story on the Con- 
stitution only once would have taken me several days. 
And to read the decisions of this Court, would have 
taken a much longer time." 

By the Court. — " The Court dislikes to interrupt any 
gentleman, but we hope you will proceed to the point 
at once. How you prepared yourself, or how you ob- 
tained your views of the Constitution, is not important. 
Lawyers prepare themselves as they please." 

Lawyer. — " If the Court please, I will then come to 
the point at once. There are several Acts of Congress, 
the first passed as early as July 31, 1789, and others at 
different periods as late as 1799, giving to the United 
States priority of payment over private creditors in cases 
of insolvency, and in the distribution of the estates of 
deceased debtors. Now I hold that all these acts are un- 
constitutional." 

By the Court. — " This Court cannot hear argument 
upon that question. It has been settled by repeated ad- 
judications. The Court regrets to be compelled to stop 
an able argument, but the question has already been ar- 
gued by able men, and decided. Had you examined 
these arguments and decisions, you would have saved 
both yourself and your client. If there was no difficulty 
in the construction of the Constitution, or if there was 
but one distinguished man, and this court had made no 
decisions, it might be well for this distinguished man to 
confine his attention alone to the Constitution. But the 
case is different. Besides, the Court cannot see any ne- 
cessity of hearing argument, if your position be correct; 
for this court would scarcely learn anything from you if 
it be true that you could learn nothing from others." 

And is not this reasoning applicable to the Church? 



i8o ' OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



The whole question as I conceive, resolves itself into 
this, and this only : Was Christ a lawgiver, and is there 
any Church? For if there be a church, there must be 
government in it. And if there be government in the 
Church, there must, of necessity, exist the executive and 
judicial powers. And if these powers exist in the 
Church, they must be supreme, and her decisions are, and 
of right ought to be, final and conclusive. And if her 
jurisdiction extend to any part of the law, it must em- 
brace all questions arising under it that require to be 
determined in this mode of existence. And if these posi- 
tions be true, then it is important to know what the 
Church has decided. 

And it must be obvious that the number and character 
of the decisions of any tribunal must be increased by 
certain circumstances: i. By the concise character of 
the code. 2. By the extent and variety of the subjects 
embraced in it. 3. By the length of its duration. The 
conciseness of the New Testament has been one of the 
main causes of the difference among Protestants. But 
this conciseness occasions no difficulty under the Cath- 
olic rule. The decisions of the Church extend the gen- 
eral principles to all new cases as they arise. And 
whereas the Protestant rule leaves every difficulty with- 
out any certain remedy, the Catholic rule provides an 
efficient remedy for every difficulty. The most defective 
governments in the world are those which provide no 
sufficient remedy for wrongs — no corrective for errors. 
And in proportion as proposed remedies are inefficient, 
so in proportion does the government approach the most 
unhappy of all conditions — anarchy. 

When we go from the officers of the Church to the 
laity, the Catholic system is far more simple, certain and 
practical, than the Protestant rule. The inquirer, under 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED i8i 



both rules, must first be satisfied that Christianity is true. 
Having reached that conclusion, under the Catholic rule, 
the inquirer has only two points to determine; namely: 
I. Which is the true Church? 2. Is he bound to hear 
her? When he has decided these, all others follow as 
logical consequences. Not so with the Protestant. He 
must, under his rule, arrive by his individual examina- 
tion at all the truths of the Scripture necessary to be 
believed. The Protestant travels the whole journey 
alone; while the Catholic finds his guide, and follows 
her. 

The real difference in the fundamental rule is this: 
When the inquirer receives the Catholic rule as true, 
his labor is at an end. He has only to follow his guide. 
But when he receives the Protestant rule as true, his 
labor is but fairly begun. 

And while all who admit the Catholic rule must come 
into the unity of the faith and the bond of peace, it is 
precisely different with the Protestant. The practical 
result has been that the Catholic rule has kept in unity 
the overwhelming majority of professed Christians ; 
while the Protestant rule has severed and divided those 
who held it into many discordant sects. One rule must 
lead to unity, the other to division. It is the great 
beauty of the Catholic fundamental rule, that unity must 
follow a concession of its truth, and that division cannot 
exist, until this fundamental truth is denied. 

Another objection which I found made by all Protes- 
tant controvertists was this, to use the confident language 
of Mr. Breckenridge : " But when you have got the 
decrees, confessions, bulls, etc., of this infallible judge, 
are they better or more clear than our Bible? Can your 
judge be more lucid than our Lord and Saviour, Jesus 
Christ? And after you have got these infallible judg- 



i82 . OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



merits, do they not also need an interpreter as much as 
the Bible?" (Con. H. & B, 13.) 

I have already given my reasons why a lawgiver, 
however competent, could not make a law, in advance, 
as plain in each particular case, as could a judicial tri- 
bunal, possessing the same capacity, after the particular 
case had arisen. Were a lawyer to use such an objec- 
tion in reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court 
of the United States upon the construction of the Con- 
stitution he would be considered as quite green; and so 
evident would be his verdancy, that he would be set 
down as knowing very little of common sense, and less 
of his profession. 

What is very remarkable, is the fact that Mr. B. be- 
longed to a Church that had a creed, considered by her 
as more plain than the Bible, or else there was no sense 
in making it. If the creed could not give a more definite 
and certain exposition of the faith of Presbyterians than 
the Bible, surely better not refine upon that which is 
already as plain as possible. Conceding the plainness 
of the Bible, it is exceedingly difficult to put the two 
positions together, except upon the ground that the creed 
and the Bible, though both equally plain, expressed very 
different things. 

It is true that decrees and bulls need construction ; but, 
being decisions upon particular points after they arise, 
and made with a single eye to them, they are, as a gen- 
eral thing, as easily understood as the decrees of the 
Council of Jerusalem. And when there is any difficulty 
in any case, there is always a living, speaking, and acces- 
sible tribunal to explain these decrees, until they are un- 
derstood. Decisions of courts are sometimes miscon- 
strued. In such cases the court can set the matter right. 
The Church is always as able to construe her decrees as 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 183 



she is to make them. Her living organs have always 
this right. And in the very few cases where any diffi- 
culty occurs among Catholics, it is easily adjusted. 

The vicious circle, 

I come now to examine an objection made originally, 
as Dr. Milner says, by Dr. Stillingfleet, and repeated in 
all the Protestant works I have read. It is so much es- 
teemed by Protestant writers, that Dr. Watts, in his 
treatise on logic, thus states it:, 

"A vicious circle is when two propositions, equally 
uncertain, are used to prove each other. Thus Papists 
prove the authority of the Scriptures by the infallibility 
of their church, and then prove the infallibility of their 
church from the authority of the Scriptures." 

Some illustrate this definition by saying, " this is like 
John giving a character to Thomas, and Thomas a char- 
acter to John." 

When I first read this position, it seemed to strike me 
as expressed with the smoothness and sententious brev- 
ity of a mere catch. And my subsequent reflections 
satisfied me that it was so. As the objection is so much 
relied upon, it will require more examination. 

The essence of this objection regards the competency 
of witnesses, and not propositions of logic, because it 
consists in the rejection of testimony however credible 
and numerous the witnesses, simply upon the ground 
that it is mutual. And, therefore, if John give Thomas, 
and he give John, a good character, their testimony must 
be rejected, though they both, being good men, did swear 
the truth. And if John the Baptist gave testimony of 
Christ, and Christ of him, their testimony must be ex- 
cluded, because they both gave each other good charac- 
ters. And if I have two good honest neighbors, who 



i84 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



give each other good characters, because they could not 
do otherwise and tell the truth, I must discard their 
statements as false, simply because two good men happen 
to know each other, and tell the truth accordingly. 

Had Mr. Starkie or Mr. Greenleaf, in their profound 
treatises upon the law of evidence, or if our courts of 
justice had laid down a rule so arbitrary and sweeping, 
regarding the competency of witnesses, the consequences 
of such a rule would be very speedily tested. Under 
it two good men never could testify for each other, al- 
though the knowledge of the facts rested alone with 
them. The mere fact that two good men give each other 
good reputations, is not the slightest evidence to show that 
the testimony is false. And the fact that two men tes- 
tify for each other, in different cases, in reference to 
different matters, is no evidence that the witnesses are 
unworthy of credit. To discredit the witnesses, you 
must show a fraudulent combination to testify for each 
other. The proof of this when made out from the ad- 
missions, conduct, and character of the witnesses, will 
destroy their testimony. But if the witnesses be other- 
wise worthy of belief, the circumstances of their mutu- 
ally testifying for each other will not destroy their tes- 
timony. When the apostles, by their own testimony, 
proved the miracles and resurrection of Christ, and then, 
by His declarations, proved the truth of the religion 
they preached, did this destroy their testimony? Surely 
not. All depended upon the credibility of the witnesses. 

But weak as this objection appeared to me, when ap- 
pHed to single witnesses, it was still weaker when ap- 
plied to associated bodies of men. Who keeps the rec- 
ords of a nation but the government of that nation? To 
whom will you apply for correct copies of our Constitu- 
tion, but to our own government? 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 185 



I find apprehended to Rickey's copy of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, a fac-simile of the certificate 
of the Secretary of State, in these words : 

" Department of State, July 20th, 1845. 
" This edition of the Constitution and amendments has been 
critically compared with the original in this department, and 
found to be correct in text, letter, and punctuation. It may, 
therefore, be relied upon as a standard edition. (The small 
figures designating the clauses are not in the original, and are 
added merely for convenience of reference.) 

"James Buchanan, 

"Secretary of State. 
" By the Secretary, 
" N. P. Trist, Chief Clerk." 

The government itself was made the depositary of the 
Constitution, and through its own officers, gives its own 
testimony as to the existence of the original, and the 
correctness of the copy; and then, by the instrument 
itself, proves the extent and character of its own powers. 
Here we have the vicious circle complete ; though I 
suppose the distinguished Secretary of State did not 
perceive the very singular fact, that in following the 
Universal practice of all governmental institutions, he 
was violating a rule of logic, solemnly laid down as 
such, by the acute Dr. Watts. What would the argu- 
ment drawn from this imaginary vicious circle be worth, 
in the estimation of an enlightened Court? 

When you want authentic copies of the decisions of 

the Supreme Court, will you apply to strangers, or to 

the clerk who keeps the records of the Court? If you 

wish to get at the true decision of a Court, will you not 

go to its own records, kept by itself? And why can we 

trust Courts, not only to keep their own records, but 

to certify that they are true, and have been faithfully 

kept? 
^ 14 



i86 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



The reason why all associated bodies of men, as well 
as all courts and legislative bodies, must be trusted, is 
because they have the knowledge of the facts — have 
no interest to distort them, for they are presumed to act 
conscientiously, and are composed of so many different 
^individuals cognizant of the same facts, and belonging 
' to the same body, that there is a security against mistake 
and fraud not always found in the case of single persons. 
Until all the members of such an association (knowing 
the facts) can be either corrupted or deceived a false- 
hood cannot be put upon the record and kept there. We 
are compelled to place confidence somewhere; and if 
we cannot trust associated bodies of men, public tribu- 
nals, and legislative bodies, to keep their own records, 
and prove their genuineness, whom can we trust? If 
there be any better security or testimony, I cannot con- 
ceive where it can be found among men. And until 
some wise person shall suggest better evidence, we must 
follow that sensible rule of law, and take the best the 
case allows. 

And so it is with the Church. Christ committed His 
law to her. He would hardly have committed it to 
His enemies, to aliens, and strangers. This would have 
been a very idle act. The law, then, being committed 
to the Church, to whom can we apply for correct copies 
of the law but to her? She has the custody, she knows 
the facts. Shall we go to enemies of the Church for 
authentic copies of a law they always hated and opposed ? 
Shall we ask them to prove facts of which they know 
nothing, and whose existence they deny? Who can be 
a credible and able witness of the facts but the party 
who knows them? 

If we can trust civil governments, legislative bodies, 
and judicial tribunals, why can we not trust the institu- 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 187 



tion of Christ ? Did He do His work so badly that His 
Church is the poorest, and most unreHable of all in- 
stitutions? Surely, if Christ committed His word to 
the Church, by that very act He did endorse her veracity, 
and we are bound to believe her. And it was one of the 
most weighty reasons for organizing a visible and infalli- 
ble Church, that our Lord might commit His law to her 
keeping. 

Is there the slightest reason for invalidating her testi- 
mony, because in the Written W^ord we find a portion of 
the proofs that she is the infallible Church? Where 
should we find those proofs, but in part, in this Word? 
Suppose the proposition to be true, for the sake of the 
argument only, that Christ did organize an infallible 
Church, and that He did commit His law to her keep- 
ing, to whom can we apply but to her? She alone had 
the custody — she alone knows the facts. If we must 
get the Scriptures from the true Church (and where else 
in God's name, can we expect to find them?) shall we 
reject all the testimony of these Scriptures as to the true 
Church? The moment we concede that an infallible 
Church is possible, we cannot, by an arbitrary rule of 
false logic, reject proper testimony to prove the fact. 
How then can true copies of the Scriptures be proven, 
and the true Church ascertained, but by the very method 
adopted by the Catholic Church? Whether she be the 
true Church or not, must not the true Church act as 
she does? Could the true Church do otherwise? And 
until some wise wit will show us a more able and re- 
liable witness than the true Church of Christ; as to 
facts peculiarly within her own knowledge, we must, 
with all due deference, believe her. 

I could not see how the Protestant theory avoided 
the supposed difficulty of the vicious circle, when they 



i88 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



wished to prove the authenticity of the Scriptures, and 
which was the true Church, or any other fact relating to 
the Church. Though Dr. Spring used this vicious cir- 
cle as an argument against the Catholic Church, he 
very unwittingly made admissions that completely neu- 
tralized his argument. He first tells us, in speaking of 
the New Testament Scriptures that copies of them 
were circulated and compared with the originals, until 
the evidence was satisfactory to the churches that they 
were both authentic and genuine." (Dissertation 27.) 

All these acts were done in the churches, the suffi- 
ciency of the evidence "was decided by them, and by whom 
then can we prove the authenticity and genuineness of 
those copies but by the Church? In reference to the 
origin of the Scriptures he says : " The divine origin 
of the sacred books is not proved simply, nor principally, 
from historical testimony. Historical testimony has its 
place, and it is no unimportant place in the argument." 
(Dis. 28.) The learned divine having referred us to 
the Church for proof of the divine origin of the sacred 
books, so far as the important part of historical testi- 
mony is concerned, how does he propose to ascertain this 
Church, HIS WITNESS to prove the authenticity and 
genuineness of these Scriptures? He insists it must be 
proved by the Scriptures alone. 

Can the Church decide her own cases? 

Another objection is made, based essentially upon a 
gross misapplication of a principle only applicable to in- 
dividuals, and not to associations of men. I will state 
it in the language of Mr. Campbell : 

" In all monarchies, save that of Rome and Mahomet, 
a judge is not constitutionally a judge of his own case. 
But the Roman judge of controversy is the whole church, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 189 



says my learned opponent, and her councils affirm with 
him. The whole church judging them between what 
parties ? Herself and the heretics ! ! What a righteous, 
and infallible, and republican judge, is the supreme 
judge of controversy in the Catholic Church ! The contro- 
versy is between two parties — the Church or the clergy 
on one side, and the heretics or the reformers on the 
other, as they may happen to be called; say the church 
and heretics. And who is umpire and who is supreme 
judge of both? One of the parties, indeed, the church 
herself! This is the archetype — the beau ideal of civil 
liberty, and republican government in the Supreme Ro- 
man hierarchy." (Debate C. & P., 280.) 

This objection was originally made by the early re- 
formers, as also by the Remonstrants at the Synod of 
Dort. I find it also in most Protestant Controvertists. 

From the very emphatic and pointed language of Mr. 
Campbell, and the extreme emphasis he puts upon the 
case, he must have considered it a most unheard of usur- 
pation for a state, sovereignty, or church, to judge in 
her own case. 

It is true, that the laws of all civilized countries lay 
down the principles, that a man cannot be a judge in his 
own case. But from all my reading, and from all my 
intercourse with intelligent men, I never knew that 
this principle, intended only for individuals, could be ap- 
plied to states, or churches, or to any other associated 
bodies of men, until I read Mr. Campbell. A father, 
by the laws of all countries, is allowed to decide between 
himself and his child, as to any disobedience of his com- 
mands. And a State, Church, or association, bears the 
same relation to those under its jurisdiction. The right 
to decide its own cases, I had always supposed, was an 
attribute of supremacy, inherent in the very nature of 



190 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



every society. Every criminal offence is committed 
against the peace and dignity of the State — is prose- 
cuted in her name — is determined by courts of her own 
creation, and composed by judges appointed and paid 
by herself, and who act only as her agents. And yet 
is this tyranny? Because an individual, when he has an 
adverse interest against another, is not allowed to de- 
cide in his own case, is there the semblance of reason 
to say, that the State is not an impartial judge in her 
own cases? What interest has the State in convicting 
an innocent man? Is she not the equal protector of all? 
Can she ask anything but what is just? Is it not de- 
rogatory to her dignity, and to the people whom she 
governs for her to oppress the poorest or meanest of her 
citizens? It certainly is, in the contemplation of the 
theory whereon all government is based. As a father 
is compelled in justice to his family, to inflict punish- 
ment, so, the State is compelled to execute justice upon 
individuals. 

And is it not so with the Church? And is it not so 
in all associations of men? What interest has the 
Church in unjustly expelling a member? 

And what sort of a true Church would that be, that was 
so more defective than the constitution of any civil state 
— that possessed so little dignity and impartiality — was 
entitled to so little respect ^ — was so feeble that there 
were none so poor to do her reverence " — so that she 
must depend upon aliens, strangers, and heretics to de- 
termine her own faith — to decide for her own children ? 
I cannot, I must confess, form a conception of such a 
Church, any more than I could of a sovereignty, calling 
in the citizens or subjects of other States to judge her 
own people. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 191 

I could find no Protestant sect that did not, at least in 
form, act upon this same condemned principle. The 
Synod of Dort took the responsibility to try to excom- 
municate the Remonstrants, against their protest. So, 
the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and all others, 
so far as they pretend to exercise governmental power at 
all, even in mere form, assume and act upon this prin- 
ciple, and never call for outside help. Even in Mr. 
Campbell's church, it was so. For each individual 
church, with its bishops and deacons, is the highest 
tribunal on earth to which an individual Christian can 
appeal; that whosoever will not hear it, has no other 
tribunal to which he can look for redress." " We know 
whom to exclude." " Such a one has denied the faith, 
and we reject him." (Christianity restored, 122, 123. 
Cited C. & R.'s Debate, 804.) 

This looks very much, I must say, exactly like trying 
its own cases by each individual church. 

The Church incapable of reformation, 

I found it also objected to the Catholic Church, that 
she was incapable of reformation. In the language of 
Mr. Breckenridge : 

" The very assumption of infallibility, while persisted 
in, renders all essential reform inconsistent and absurd; 
unnecessary and impossible. Hence the corruptions of 
the church of Rome in doctrine, morals and essential 
worship, have been perpetuated from age to age." (Con. 
H. & B., 224.) 

This objection is also made by Mr. Campbell, and by 
most Protestant writers. It seems to be considered by 
them generally, as a very strong argument. 

It is very natural that Protestants and Catholics should 



192 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



differ about the character of the true church. Their 
fundamental rules lead to very different results. While 
the Catholic rule makes the Church always the same, 
" UNREFORMED AND UNREFORMABLE BOTH 
NOW AND FOREVER," (as Mr. Breckenridge de- 
clares), the Protestant rule, on the contrary, makes her 
the precise opposite, REFORMED AND REFORMA- 
BLE, " both now and forever." One begins and ends 
with a fixedness and certainty — the other begins and 
ends with inquiry and doubt. 

I must confess that I love permanency and stability in 
all institutions. I never found truth to waver. I found 
change marked upon the face of error, but I never found 
it labelled upon the brow of truth. Before I became a 
Catholic, and before I had made any investigation into 
the truth of that system, I remember to have been told, 
in substance, by an eminent Protestant, that he thought 
the stability of the Roman Catholic Church, was her 
most admirable feature. It struck me, at the time, as 
one of the most sensible positions I had heard. It was 
evidently based upon sound sense, and pure philosophy. 

And in my after investigations, among the truths I 
thought I could find in the New Testament was the 
explicit fact, that the true Church was not to change. 
I could not conceive of a changeable Church, and have 
any confidence in the promises of Christ. And besides, 
it did seem to me as just to mankind, that the same true 
Church, " unreformed and unreformable, both now and 
forever," should exist in every age, that all might enjoy 
the same opportunities for heaven. I could not see any 
object in the organization of a reformable church. It 
could guide no one. 

Whatever system Christ did establish, He intended it 
to last through all coming time. It was not designed 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



to meet the whims of men — the prevailing temper of the 
times — or to excuse the errors of heretics. Christ be- 
ing infinite, the map of the future lay before Him, as 
evident as that of the past; and He adopted a system 
applicable to all times, all places, and all persons, and 
yet inflexible and unchangeable. His system when ex- 
tended through all future ages, and legitimately carried 
out, would save more men in the end, than an uncertain, 
flexible, and changeable theory, which, upon its very face, 
was suspicious, from the fact, that it claimed nothing, 
and asked for no respect. If Christ organized any 
Church, no man has any right to set up another. And 
if he does so, his act is void. 

When we reflect upon the fact, expressly declared by 
our Lord, and shown in all the Epistles, and admitted 
by Protestants and proved by common sense, that the 
SUCCESS of His system depended upon the unity of 
His FOLLOWERS, and that all Christians did join this 
one Church in the days of the apostles, we can then see 
the great END Christ had in view in organizing ONE 
VISIBLE CHURCH. If the success of His system had 
not required the united faith and efforts of His fol- 
lowers, there would have been no reason for the ex- 
istence of this one Kingdom. The Christian army is 
like any other army. Its success upon the field of battle 
depends upon its unity. It must act like one man, ready, 
able and willing to face a foe from any quarter, at any 
moment. 

Because Christ knew that the success of His system de- 
pended upon the unity of His followers, He organized 
His Church, and gave it most magnificent promises of 
protection ; and imposed upon men the corresponding 
duty to hear this Church, and of becoming members of 
this one fold. And having this glorious end in view, 



194 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



was it not just as reasonable that He should require 
all men to hear this Church, and believe in this Church, 
as to believe any other truth He proposed? 

I must say that I love a Church that claims to be the 
sole true Church. She acts like the true Church. It 
is the kind of Church v^e read of. She, at least, makes 
a consistent, rational, and Scriptural case, in her declara- 
tion. Upon the face of the papers, she makes out a good 
showing; not a wild and incoherent, mixed and multi- 
farious claim, that contains so many inconsistencies, that 
new ones start up in every line. But when a Church 
comes to me and says : " I glory in having reformed 
my creed, and in being always reformable ; " I cannot 
but say : " You will, perhaps, always need it." Con- 
stitutional infirmities are never cured. They * lead but 
to the grave.' I can well understand how the members 
of the true church could reform themselves in their own 
conduct. But how the work of our Lord— -the Church 
herself — could be reformed, I cannot conceive. 

" I know you are liberal. You admit salvation can be 
found in a great variety of Churches. But is it, in fact 
and truth, salvation? Is it that priceless jewel? Are 
you sure of it? From the very fact that you are so 
willing to compromise, and admit that salvation can be 
found even in the alleged Church of anti-christ, I fear 
your principles are too liberal to be true. I believe in 
truth. I am content to find it. I think it the best mercy 
— the best humanity — the best sense — the best logic — 
and it is certainly the safest. I have known many men 
set up false claims to property, and I never knew one 
yet, who was conscious of the fact, but was willing to 
compromise. He could lose nothing, and was certain 
to gain something. The terms were not very material. 
He was always liberal. Like the woman that falsely 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



195 



claimed the child before King Solomon, he was always 
ready, able and willing to ' divide it.' But not so with 
the true owner — the man conscious of his rights. It 
was matter of principle with him. He always said * all 
or none ' — ' My God and my right.' It seems it ought 
to be so with the true Church. She ought to listen to 
no one but her Master. Let her be as inflexible, stub- 
born, and intolerant as fact and truth always are. Is 
she not the more beautiful ? — the more lovely ? the more 
merciful? Is there any mercy but in the truth? any 
charity but in the fact? You may possibly be in the 
right, but my mind is so constituted as not to perceive 
it. Your theory is certainly very flattering. It raises 
my individual mind above yourself. But I am after sal- 
vation — not flattery. If I were not to be judged here- 
after by a severe judge, who knows his own rights — has 
the ability to protect them — and does not deal in flat- 
tery, then I would like your system well. But I have 
my fears that it will not do. I can have no confidence 
in a Church that has none in herself — that cannot as- 
sure me of anything, because, confessedly, she does not 
know. It does not seem to have been so with the old 
Church. She possessed not that infirmity, but lifted 
her mighty head above the shifting storms below. Like 
a cloud-capped mountain peak, she aspired to the skies. 
Her claims were as manifest as the snow-clad sierras. 
And like the eternal hills, she stood firm and high. And 
while she held up truth to the world, she never stooped 
to flatter. I would like to find that Church that has 
actually * seen the Lord/ and for that reason . has not 
been reformed, and cannot be reformed; BECAUSE 
SHE WAS SO CONSTITUTED IN THE BEGIN- 
NING AS NEVER TO NEED IT." 

If we were to admit that salvation may be found in 



196 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



many different churches, under the reformable-true- 
church theory, where shall we fix the limits? Faith 
must have some determinate limits. If you adopt the 
theory of more than one Churchy where will you stop? 
And wherever you do stop, are your limits more intelli- 
gible — more plain — more just — more certain than the 
limits of the one-unref ormable-Church theory ? Are they 
more charitable or more consistent? You must lay down 
some sensible rule, some fixed limits, or your theory will 
not have even the shadow of system in it. It will depend 
upon the sliding scale of the times. And would that be 
Christianity? Would such a theory save souls? 

Wicked persons are sometimes found in the Catholic 
Church. 

One of the charges made by Mr. Campbell against 
the Catholic Church was, that wicked persons were some- 
times members of her communion. 

It must be manifest that no Church can certainly know 
who are at heart good, and who are evil. No being but 
God, whose eye is on the heart," can determine this 
question. In a visible Church, there must and will be 
members who are unworthy, and the Church cannot be 
held responsible for their individual vices. If we make the 
true visible Church responsible for the acts of wicked 
members, we place her safety and existence entirely at the 
mercy of her enemies, who have only to join and then 
to ruin her. And every member of the Church, from the 
most elevated and upright down to the most unworthy, 
is a sinner, to a greater or less extent. We are all sin- 
ners. 

When Peter asked his Master how often he should 
forgive his brother, " Jesus said unto him, I say not unto 
thee until seven times; but until seventy times seven." 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 197 



(Matt, xviii, 21, 22.) And again our Blessed Lord de- 
clares : " Take heed to yourselves. If thy brother tres- 
pass against thee, rebuke him: and if he repent, forgive 
him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a 
day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying, 
I repent, thou shalt forgive him." (Luke xvii, 3, 4.) 

This merciful rule was laid down by our Lord, Who 
knew full well the infirmity of human nature, and the 
frailty of man. And we find in His own blessed apostles, 
the full proof of how great this infirmity is. We hear the 
fervent and devoted Paul say of himself, I am carnal, 
sold under sin. . . . For the good that I would do, 
I do not ; but the evil which I would not, that I do." 

If then my brother trespass against me seven times in 
a day, and seven times in a day return and say, I re- 
pent, I must forgive him. And I must do this upon his 
saying I repent. 

I cannot judge his heart — I can know what he says. 
What then can the true Church do, but follow the merci- 
ful commands of her Master? She cannot make a new 
law. She must forgive as she has been commanded. 
If then a member returns and says " I repent," the 
Church can only forgive him. 

And when I came to examine into this subject, I found 
that by the discipline of the Church, every member was re- 
quired to confess his sins, and receive the sacrament of 
the Eucharist at least once a year. If he neglect this 
duty, when in his power, he commits a grave sin. If 
then he complies with this duty, how can the Church re- 
fuse him her fellowship? She allows him a certain pe- 
riod for repentance and confession. If he obey, she must 
forgive. If he disobey, he is not excluded from the privi- 
lege of repentance. Nor is he excluded from assisting 
in the celebration of her festivals, nor from attending her 



198 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



worship. All persons have this privilege. She knows 
that many a wanderer has been called home by kindness. 
And while she urges all to the strictest obedience, and 
reproves all for their sins without distinction of con- 
dition, and holds up before their eyes the fatal conse- 
quences of every sin, she at the same time remembers, 
that she is bound by the command of her Master to for- 
give seventy times seven, if her children return and re- 
pent. How many by this merciful rule of our Lord, 
have been finally saved! 

There is a marked distinction between the body and 
soul of the Church. All who are baptized, profess the 
true faith, assist at the same religious services, and com- 
ply with the rules of the Church, belong to the body of 
the Church, and are numbered among her children. But 
to faith and exterior communion, must be added hope 
and charity and the grace of God, that we may belong 
to the soul of the Church. These two classes God alone 
can separate. The Church can determine as to what is 
faith, what is heresy; and while it is her duty to teach 
all the truth, she cannot judge the inward man. As 
Bishop Purcell beautifully expresses it : " When Christ 
empowered the Church to throw her nets into the sea 
of human life, as the apostles did into the Lake, she 
gathered into it fishes both good and bad; when the 
nets are hauled ashore, the good fish will be selected 
and the bad thrown back into the sea. So will it be 
at the end of the world. The angels of God will come 
forth and select the elect from the reprobate — they will 
gather the wheat into the garner, but the tares they will 
burn with unquenchable fire." ..." Hence as long 
as one of her members disqualifies not himself for the 
communion of the faithful by flagrant impiety, notorious 
depravity, or scandalous excess, she rejects him not; 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



199 



but like that charity of which St. Paul speaks, ' is patient, 
is kind, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but re- 
joiceth with truth, believeth all things, hopeth all things, 
endureth all things, with modesty admonishing men, if 
peradventure God may give them repentance.' " (Bishop 
Purcell Debate C. & P., 71.) 

There is such a thing as being too strict. We see it 
exhibited in the conduct of the Pharisees. Christ was 
blamed because he eat with publicans and sinners, and 
because he was their friend. His disciples were blamed 
for eating as they went through the fields on the Sabbath 
day. And in the history of the Church subsequent to 
the days of the apostles, we find the same excessive 
strictness generally among heretics. The Novatians 
were condemned for their excessive severity. They 
would admit of no repentance — of no return to the 
Church. The Manicheans also claimed the most extraor- 
dinary piety, while teaching the most ruinous doc- 
trines. The Vaudois also required their members to be 
poor and illiterate, making poverty a requisite instead of a 
perfection, as Christ had done. And if we look into the 
history of the dif¥erent sects of condemned heretics, we 
shall find the greater portion of them always claiming 
the most rigid virtue, and placing the essentials of re- 
ligion in the counsels of perfection. 

It is very natural that Protestants should regard ex- 
communication among them, if it can be so called, with 
much less caution than it is regarded by Catholics. This 
grows out of their theory. It springs necessarily from 
their rule. With them it is not an expulsion,- but a 
mere separation. It affects not the party. It decides 
nothing. It does not show that he is a heretic. It is 
not the slightest evidence that he is so. It simply shows 
the mere opinion of those who differ with him. In the 



200 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



contemplation of the theory itself, their opinion is no 
better than his. They are each independent equals. 
They then can declare a separation without much danger 
of doing any injury to the party, even if they are wrong. 
He can easily join some other church, in which his 
chances for heaven will be, perhaps, greater than they 
were in the Church he left. 

But it is not so in the Catholic Church. In her theory 
excommunication still means something. It still has the 
effect it did of old. For this reason the Council of Trent 
at its twenty-fifth session, chapter third, required that ex- 
communication should be " used with sobriety and great 
circumspection." 

The successors of the Apostles may he successors in full. 

In his debate with Bishop Purcell, Mr. Campbell in- 
sisted that the apostles, if they had successors at all, must 
have successors in full. He refers to the office of Presi- 
dent, and says truly, that each succeeding President has 
the same powers as the first. This same objection is 
generally made by Protestant controvertists. The es- 
sence of the objection is, that the infallible assistance of 
the Holy Ghost was given to each apostle individually, 
while it is conceded that each Catholic Bishop is not 
personally infallible, except the Bishop of Rome; but 
this infallible assistance is claimed to have been given 
to the college of teachers, as the organs of the entire cor- 
poration, the Church. This college, in its collective ca- 
pacity, claims the same powers and qualifications to 
teach, as did the apostles. It will be observed, that the 
question does not regard the amount of power, nor the 
extent of the divine assistance, but solely the mode in 
which this assistance is given. The power and ability to 
do the same things, that is, to teach the same truths, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 



201 



are now claimed by the organs of the Church, as were 
claimed and exercised by the apostles themselves. 

The apostles, being the first teachers, had necessarily, 
in the beginning, to travel into different countries, and 
remain for several years separated from each other ; and 
this personal infallibility was required by the extraor- 
dinary circumstances in which they were placed. But 
it is still clear, from the history of the council of Jeru- 
salem, that the same infallible assistance was also granted 
to the college of teachers, including others besides the 
apostles. This infallible assistance came down in the 
latter form^ to the successors of the apostles. 

Besides this, the apostles were chosen witnesses, as 
well as teachers. The powers they exercised being but 
delegated, they could act in two or more different ca- 
pacities. The apostles were to bear witness of Christ; 
and one of the offices of the Holy Ghost was to bring to 
their recollection all things that Christ had said to them. 
(John xiv, 26.) Witnesses can only act individually. 
Each can only state what he finds written upon his own 
memory. He is only called upon to state what he knows 
himself. Recollection is an individual act ; and the prom- 
ise that the Holy Ghost should bring all things to their 
recollection was, in its nature, confined to the apostles, 
and the fulfillment of this promise, necessarily made 
them individually infallible. Under the commission " Go 
teach," the infallible assistance was promised to the col- 
lege through all coming time; and under the special 
promise that the Holy Ghost should bring all things to 
their recollection, this assistance was given to the apos- 
tles individually, because they had more capacities to fill 
them than their successors under the commission. 



15 



CHAPTER IX 



CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE JESUITS AND CER- 
TAIN POPES 

Charges against the Jesuits, 

Among other charges made against the Catholics, by 
Mr. Campbell, I found certain allegations against the 
Jesuits. Although the cause of the Catholic Church is 
not identical with this order — though she can stand 
alone without it — and though at one time it had many- 
enemies among Catholics, yet, as it is an influential order 
in the church, I examined these charges, to the best of 
my opportunity. The charges of Mr. C. were based 
mainly upon The Secreta Monita of the Order of 
Jesuits." He states he was informed by the lady from 
whom he obtained it, that it had been brought to the 
United States by the Secretary of Lafayette. This Sec- 
retary was an Infidel and a Jacobin, as Bishop Purcell 
stated. 

" The Secreta Monita, then," says Mr. C, " is just as 
accurate and fair a view of the spirit, design, and policies 
of that order, as can be given. Such is our faith; and 
on no mean testimony either. 

" We shall give some account of the discovery of this 
said book: 

" We are indebted for this terrible book of Jesuits' 
secrets, to the Parliament of Paris. They passed the 
act to abolish the Jesuits' society ; and the execution came 

202 



JESUITS 



203 



on the Jesuit college like a thunder stroke. Their palace 
was surrounded by troops, and their papers and books, 
and these " Secret Instructions " were seized before they 
had heard that the parliament had taken up their cause ! 

The reasons which the Parliament of France, in 
1762, gave for extirpating this order, which has been 
thirty-nine times proscribed, speak volumes: 

" ' The consequences of their doctrine destroy the laws 
of nature : break all the bonds of civil society : authoriz- 
ing lying, theft, perjury, the utmost uncleanness, mur- 
der, and all sins ! Their doctrines root out all senti- 
ments of humanity: excite rebellion: root out all reli- 
gion: and substitute all sorts of superstition, blasphemy, 
irreligion, idolatry.' 

" Other reasons for the suppression of this order will 
be found in the following extract from their oath: 

" ' In the presence of Almighty God and of all the 
saints, to you, my Ghostly Father, I do declare that his 
holiness, the Pope, is Christ's vicar-general, and the only 
head of the universal church throughout the earth; and 
that by virtue of the keys given him by my Saviour, 
Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, 
princes, states, commonwealths, and governments, all 
being illegal without his sacred confirmation; and that 
they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, I to the ut- 
most of my power, shall and will defend his doctrine, 
and his holiness' rights and customs against all usurp- 
ers, etc. 

" * I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to 
any heretical king, prince, state, named Protestants 
or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or of- 
ficers. 

" * I do further promise and declare, that notwith- 
standing I am dispensed with, to assume any religion 



204 



JESUITS 



heretical for the propagation of the mother church's in- 
terest — to keep secret and private all her agents, coun- 
sel, etc. 

" ' All of which, I, A B, do swear by the blessed Trin- 
ity, and the Blessed Sacrament, which I am now to 
receive. And I call all the heavenly and glorious hosts 
above, to witness these my real intentions, to keep this 
my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most blessed 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, and set my hand and seal.' " 
(Debate C. & P., 293.) 

The Secreta Monita having been denied by Bishop 
Purcell as genuine, and alleged to be a forgery, Mr. 
Campbell in reply says: 

" Knowing, my fellow-citizens, how much depends in 
such a discussion as that now in progress, on having 
authentic documents, I determined, from the beginning, 
to rely on none which could, on proper evidence, or with 
justice, be repudiated. I know that in all debates so far 
back as the very era of the Reformation, this party have 
been accustomed to deny authorities, to dispute versions, 
translations, etc., even of their own writers who were 
so candid as to give a tolerably fair representation of 
themselves." 

After some further remarks of the same tenor, and 
in reference to the Jesuits, Mr. C. continues: 

" Here is another document, not from the ashes of 
a monastery. I do not know the writer of this article: 
but it is from an encyclopaedia." (Debate C. & P., 
301.) 

One would naturally suppose from this avowal of 
Mr. C. that he was determined to quote from some au- 
thority that could not be questioned. But the Encyclo- 
paedia of Religious Knowledge, from which he quoted, 
was a very recent Protestant work, published by Fes- 



JESUITS 



205 



senden & Co. I afterwards consulted the work myself. 
It seemed to be generally fair enough to the Protestant 
sects, usually giving their tenets in the words of some 
leading member of the particular church; but in all that 
related to Catholics, it was prejudiced and partial, as 
could readily be seen by anyone having any tolerable idea 
of the Catholic faith. Its articles in reference to that 
Church bear upon their face, to my mind, the impress 
of onesided and partial statements. 

I take ^so much of the extracted article as gives the 
essence of the charges against the order. 

" The essential principles of this institution, namely, 
that their order is to be maintained at the expense of 
society at large, and that the end sanctifies the means, 
are utterly incompatible with the welfare of any com- 
munity of men. Their system of lax and pliant morality, 
justifying every vice, and authorizing every atrocity, has 
left deep and lasting ravages on the face of the moral 
world. Their zeal to extend the jurisdiction of the 
Court of Rome over every civil government, gave cur- 
rency to tenets respecting the duty of opposing princes 
who were hostile to the Catholic faith, which shook the 
basis of all political allegiance, and loosened the obliga- 
tions of every human law. Their indefatigable industry, 
and countless artifices in resisting the progress of the 
Reformed religion, perpetuated the most pernicious 
errors of Popery, and postponed the triumph of tolerant 
and Christian principles. 

" The evils of Jesuitism arise not from the violation 
of the principles of the order; on the contrary, they are 
the natural and necessary fruits of the system; they are 
confined to no age, place, or person." (Encyclopaedia 
of Religious Knowledge, p. 685, as given by Mr. C.) 

This indictment was certainly the most formidable I 



206 



JESUITS 



had ever read. All the forms in the Criminal Pre- 
cedents could not equal it. It did not charge this 
abandoned order of men with certain specified crimes 
only, but with every crime under heaven. And not only 
so, but with everything unclean, low, vile, and idolatrous. 
There was no crime, no degrading practice, of which 
they were not alleged to be guilty. They were alleged 
human monsters. So unlimited were their alleged de- 
formities, that they had but one single virtue left, and 
that was indispensably necessary to complete their al- 
leged system of villainy. They were conceded to have 
consciences, upon which you could predicate the obliga- 
tion of an oath. These charges certainly contained 
enough to satisfy any enemy. If the order had a bitter 
and slanderous enemy in the world, he certainly could 
find food enough in this indictment upon which to feast 
his enmity. He could well say : This is full, final, and 
complete. They are charged with everything. Nothing 
could be better because nothing can be added.'' 

How shall such unfortunate men be tried? With 
such charges impending over them, can they hope for 
justice in this world? They come into court crushed 
with a mass of such a wild multiplicity of charges, that 
the court and jury instinctively turn from these miserable 
beings, either guilty of, or unfortunate enough to be 
charged with, such a total abandonment of all and every 
moral principle. The very reading of such an indictment 
is enough to overwhelm them, and to half convict them 
of its most horrible charges. Ought men so unfortunate 
as to be charged with such unlimited depravity, even 
though innocent, to get justice in this world? Why 
should they ? Are they not like the alleged leper, though 
clean, still dreaded and shunned everywhere? Is it not 
better humanity to sacrifice such an order of men, than to 



JESUITS 



207 



face such a calumny? Is it not better to let the melan- 
choly victims of slander go to their graves in shame and 
ignominy, than to vindicate human nature itself from 
such a libel? Had we better not hang the principle on 
high, that the bare making of such charges is conclusive 
evidence of their truth, and thus put the reputations of 
all men at the mercy of their enemies? 

But are not these Jesuits men? Are they not our 
brethren? Are they not entitled to the rights of human 
nature? Ought we not to judge them as we would other 
men? And not believe them guilty of all the crimes 
possible against God and humanity, without evidence 
full and satisfactory, and strong and conclusive, in pro- 
portion as the crimes alleged are monstrous and in- 
credible? In other words shall we not judge them by the 
same rules of charity by which we would be judged our- 
selves, and under which alone human virtue can claim a 
home upon this earth? 

Shall we permit the mere fact that these men have 
been so frequently accused, by their enemies, of wrong 
and injury against society itself, and especially of those 
vague and general charges, behind which slander is wont 
to hide itself, to weigh with us? For is it not too true, 
that as the last refuge of discomfited slander, she con- 
tents herself with accusing her victim of some general 
meanness — of some universal depravity — ol a sus- 
picion of being suspected? And shall we take the mere 
clamor and vehemence of their enemies as evidence in 
such a case? If we do so, we place the cause of truth 
in the power of its enemies, for they can always raise a 
clamor; and the less proof they have, the more clamor 
they need, and, therefore, the more naturally resort to 
it ; and if we reason upon that basis, and take clamor as 
evidence, we shall reject Christianity itself j for we must 



2o8 



JESUITS 



remember that millions of Jews, by clamor, brought 
Christ to the Cross. Were they right? Was He guilty? 
And when Paul met his Jewish brethren at Rome, they 
had naught to say against the disciples of the Lord Jesus, 
but that the " sect was everywhere spoken against." We 
ought to remember that for centuries the Christians 
were overwhelmed with a mighty mass of accusations, 
imputing to them crimes the most enormous, improbable, 
and unreasonable in themselves; and in almost all cases, 
alleged to have been committed in secret. As the mighty 
sum total of all their alleged iniquities, they were charged 
with being " enemies of mankind." And so general 
was the belief of their guilt, that when the tyrant Nero 
burned the city of Rome, His first thought was to charge 
it upon the Christians; a charge like all other wholesale 
charges, requiring nothing but malice to make, and 
nothing but prejudice to believe. Had we lived in that 
age, and had taken the clamor and vehemence of the 
millions as evidence of the truth of their charges, we 
could not have been Christians at all. We ought further 
to remember that Christ expressly foretold that his sin- 
cere followers should be hated of all nations for his 
name's sake." It is one of the most beautiful truths of 
Christianity, that this prediction, made so long ago, has 
been so literally fulfilled in all after ages. Were an in- 
telligent and observant stranger just arrived from a dis- 
tant land, called upon, with revelation and reason as his 
sole guide, to select the true followers of Christ, he would 
unhesitatingly fix upon that body of men most distin- 
guished for their energy, zeal, and devotion; and who 
especially were most violently abused and opposed by 
Infidels and discordant sects. 



JESUITS 



209 



These charges examined. 

This charge of universal depravity is expressly made 
against the entire order. It is not limited to individuals. 
It includes each and every member. They are all ex- 
pressly alleged to take the oath. They all concur in 
everything. They all have the secret instructions. And 
the sum total of this unlimited system of vice is alleged 
to be comprised in this short sentence : " The end sancti- 
fies the means." I must say, that ingenious malice, with 
the whole world for its range, and all time for its dura- 
tion, could not possibly have invented a charge more 
extended in meaning, and more concise in words. This 
short sentence of only five omnipotent words, embodies 
a charge of every crime under heaven ; and is so short 
that it can be repeated oft and oft again; and is yet so 
extensive in meaning, that as often as it is repeated, it 
leaves the prejudiced and disordered imagination, in se- 
lecting the food it feeds upon, to revel, untrammelled, in 
all the wide fields of human iniquity. Like the charge 
against the early Christians of being " enemies of man- 
kind," or like that often made by malicious persons, he 
is a mean man," it has no limits ; and everything may be 
included under it that may suit the appetite of each in- 
dividual. 

There are certain instincts in envy, malice, and 
prejudice, that seem to have been provided by God him- 
self, on purpose to defeat the ends aimed at by these 
base passions. Envy always depreciates superior merit; 
and when the act itself is too good to be denied, never 
fails to impute an improper motive to him who per- 
formed it ; while malice in its bitterness, is never satisfied 
with imputing to its victim anything short of the most 
enormous and improbable crimes, and the more innocent 



210 



JESUITS 



the victim, the more cordially it hates him, because the 
more unlike itself; and prejudice could not claim its 
peculiar merit, if it believed reasonable charges, upon 
sufficient testimony, but must out-suspect and out-guess 
everything else. 

One of the difficulties that occurred to me, in my 
reflections upon this alleged oath, was the extreme folly 
of attempting to bind men, by an oath, who had no con- 
science. To swear men by " the blessed Trinity," " and 
the blessed sacrament," while they called all the heaven- 
ly and glorious hosts above to witness," that they would 
commit all the crimes possible, if necessary, did seem to 
me the most futile and the most idle. What ideas of 
the obligation of an oath could such men have? They 
are alleged to have had no virtue upon which conscience 
could rest. Men who could deliberately go into such an 
association, and then undertake to obey these secret in- 
structions, could no more be trusted than rogues and 
murderers. 

When, for my own satisfaction, I was inquiring into 
the truth of Christianity, I was struck with the peculiar 
force of one argument. It was insisted that we could not 
account for the conduct of the apostles, upon the sup- 
position that they had combined to assert a system of 
falsehood, and to palm it upon the world — that it was 
impossible to combine twelve men, and send them out 
into all the world, to preach the same falsehoods, and that 
all of them should remain faithful, on all occasions, 
however painful the test, and not betray the secret. I 
could well understand how such a union could be formed 
and kept together, upon the basis of truth, but never 
upon that of falsehood, when the same was known to 
the whole party. I knew there were moments when the 
truth will come. 



JESUITS 



211 



" For e'en the rogue by fits is fair and wise " — that 
all men had an inward conviction and dread of future 
punishment, and in the honest hour of death, when the 

" scathing thoughts of execrated years," 

brought up before the dying vision of the guilty culprit 
the blurred and blotted page of the ignominious past — 
that then murder would out. Some of them would tell 
it — some would let it out. 

How then will this argument apply to the Jesuits as 
an order of men, governed by certain rules applicable 
to the whole class? It is alleged in substance by their 
accusers, that they had one set of rules for the public, 
which were good enough, and another set of rules to 
be kept a profound secret, from all persons but members 
of the order. These secret rules contained the horrible 
sentiments charged, and were all alleged to be printed in 
a book called " The Secreta Monita," and kept for the 
use of the members. 

This order was intended to be perpetual, and its mem- 
bers were expected to become numerous, and to be 
scattered all over the wide earth. And so they were. 
They numbered some ten thousand members, at the date 
of their suppression. It was a most extraordinary com- 
bination. The mind that originated it must have been 
at one and the same time a giant and a pigmy — must 
have possessed grand and sublime ideas — systematic 
powers, and yet not a particle of principle, and not the 
slightest knowledge of human nature. All the mem- 
bers of this body must have had strange and singular 
views. Like other men, they knew they must die — 
that their ranks must be supplied with new members 
— that these would be induced to apply for admission 
upon the basis of the published rules, which were honest ; 



212 



JESUITS 



but that after they became members, they were to be 
changed from pious, honest, and sincere men, to monsters 
of crime; and that so perfect was the logic of the order 
that it never failed to make this conversion from honesty 
to villainy; so that there was not one left to tell the 
story, that such infamous principles and oaths had been 
proposed to him, and by him rejected with scorn and 
indignation. In other words, they must have thought 
that the most effectual way to organize a band of aban- 
doned reprobates, was to put forth a platform in public, 
that would only invite the pious and good, but when 
once in the order, that each new member, though de- 
ceived and defrauded, would at once, by some extraor- 
dinary magic, abandon all his previous views, and sub- 
mit willingly, kindly, to this infamous deception, and 
work faithfully and continuously, in upholding this same 
stupendous fraud. 

Not only so, but they must have thought that the book 
containing their secret rules, could never come to light 
by any of the ten thousand accidents of life — that al- 
though in the hands of all Jesuits, scattered all over the 
world, that still when one died his book would not be 
left behind him, to fall into the hands of some one who 
might betray the mighty secret — that when one of their 
members committed murder by poison or assassination, 
that no chemical test could be found to show the exist- 
ence of the deadly drug in the stomach of the deceased, 
and the spilled blood of the assassinated would leave 
no stain — and when they went upon their midnight ex- 
cursions of crime, they would leave no trace, nor track, 
but flit through the air, like wicked spirits, unseen, but 
felt. These men seem never to have understood the one 
plain simple fact, that the introduction of every new 
conspirator, only increased the danger of detection; but 



JESUITS 



213 



like some foolish people who tell their secrets to every- 
body, that they may have good help to keep them, these 
men, v^hile utterly destitute of principle, still had un- 
limited confidence in each other, and never once sus- 
pected, that men, capable of, and pledged to commit, 
every possible crime, must certainly sooner or later, fall 
out among themselves, and betray the whole conspiracy. 
If these monstrous charges be true these men were 
extraordinary monsters, destitute alike of all principle 
and of all common sense. If I could believe such charges, 
then I should not only consider the Jesuits as the greatest 
mass of conglomerated vice that ever disgraced human- 
ity, but as the greatest collection of fools that ever de- 
graded human intellect. And I am willing to say, in the 
face of all men, that I am one of those charitable, cred- 
ulous creatures (fools if you please) who believe that the 
great mass of all churches, and of all the different orders 
of those churches, are honest in their convictions ; and 
that, in the very nature and reason of things, it could not 
be otherwise — that honest conviction, though erroneous, 
is the only basis upon which any society of men can be 
held together from age to age — and that no man, or 
set of men, having the least claim to intellect, ever did 
dream, or ever will dream of organizing a permanent 
order of men, upon any other basis. As well might it 
be assumed, that a resident and fixed community could 
all be rogues, who would wear out the very property 
itself in stealing it continually one from the other, and 
yet competition would not ruin the trade, and destroy 
the union and peace of the society, as that a numerous, 
widely-dispersed, and gifted body of religious men, could 
be held together when even a majority are hypocrites and 
villains; much less when all are so. 

But the history of the Jesuits, as well as the admis- 



214 



JESUITS 



sions of candid men not of their religion, show that they 
are a most distinguished order of men — distinguished 
for their profound and varied erudition — their inde- 
fatigable industry — their zeal — their heroic devotion — 
their untiring energy, and their unfaltering and steady 
perseverance. These are noble traits — fit companions of 
integrity. When I see the fervid and intrepid Paul 
leave his own country, and go through strange lands, 
suffering persecution and shame at every step, and wear- 
ing out his very existence in preaching the mild gospel 
of the despised Nazarine, I am compelled in the inner- 
most recesses of my heart, to admit his motives were 
good — his integrity unquestioned ; for I cannot find any 
other adequate motive, upon any principle of reason or 
charity, by which to account for such voluntary sacri- 
fices. And when I see the labors and sacrifices of the 
Jesuit Fathers in every land, among all nations — how 
they composed the noblest orations, the finest histories, 
the sublimest poems, and wrote the ablest treatises on 
every branch of science, (even that of gunnery) — when 
I see these devoted missionaries go 

"through foaming waves to distant shores," 

visiting every people in the world, and like the sainted 
Xavier, 

" whose lips were love, whose touch was power, 
whose thoughts were vivid flame," 

leaving their worn-out or slaughtered bodies in every 
savage clime, and enduring toils and dangers, sufferings 
and privations, second only to those of the apostles and 
earlier saints, I cannot deny to these men holy and lofty 
motives; for it seems not more natural for the oak to 
grow from the acorn, than for noble and virtuous deeds 
and heroic sacrifices, to spring from corresponding mo- 



JESUITS 



215 



tives. As certain acids are the sure tests of certain 
metals, so great and voluntary sacrifices, without tem- 
poral reward, are the never failing criterions of sin- 
cerity. And when I witness the perseverance, and patient 
and continued duration of this body of men through 
calumny, hatred^ and contempt, in a cause in which they 
can have no greater personal interest than others, I 
cannot see any other adequate motive than those high 
and holy purposes that spring from a fixed conviction 
of being in the right, in the noblest of causes. I am 
compelled to this conviction, notwithstanding all the 
clamor against these men; and why? If it be true, as 
nearly all Catholics think, and many others admit, that 
this order of men are the most eminent for their knowl- 
edge, virtue, zeal, and devotion, of all the orders in the 
Roman church or in the world, then from the very reason 
and nature of things, this state of misrepresentation must 
follow; for if there be any envy in rival orders of their 
own church, it would fix itself upon them, for envy al- 
ways seeks " higher game." And if there be any fear, 
malice, or prejudice in the ranks of opponents, they 
would be mainly directed against them; for fear has an 
unerring instinct in apprehending the most formidable 
danger, while malice is fertile in inventing, and interested 
prejudice most ready in believing, charges against the 
most distinguished men in the ranks of opponents. When 
we hear the writer in the encyclopaedia say, as I have 
quoted above, that their indefatigable industry, and 
countless artifices in resisting the progress of the re- 
formed religion, perpetuated the most pernicious errors 
of popery," we have the key to the motive that keeps 
alive this denunciation. When we hear Mr. Campbell 
say, " The Jesuits, that standing army of the Pope, are 
revived, and inundating our country. Other fraternities 



2l6 



JESUITS 



are but the militia; but these are the trained band life- 
guards of the papacy," (Debate C. & P., 301) we can 
readily see where the shoe pinches. When you go into 
an orchard, even months after the fruit is all gone, and 
you see there a noble looking tree, whose wide-spreading 
top is filled with sticks, so that you know everybody has 
been " pitching into it," you may know, with unerring 
certainty that this tree produces the best fruit in the 
orchard. 

The circumstances connected with the alleged discovery 
of this Secreta Monita, upon their face, proved to my 
satisfaction that it was a forgery. This event happened 
in the Infidel times preceding the horrors that followed 
the French Revolution. It was the age of Voltaire and 
other distinguished Infidels. Voltaire was accustomed 
to say that " he was tired of hearing it said, that twelve 
men had been able to convert the world from Paganism 
to Christianity, for that he would let it be seen that one 
man was able to unchristianize it." At the head of his 
letters to his infidel conspirators against revelation, he 
was accustomed to say, " Let us crush the wretch," 
meaning Jesus Christ and His religion. In the private 
correspondence of Voltaire and D'Alembert, it is 
acknowledged there was no hope of success in destroying 
Christianity, unless the Jesuits were first put down. This 
order of men, by their talents, industry, and zeal, were 
able to keep in check the attempts of the Infidels, by 
refuting and exposing their sophistry. The Parliament 
of France in 1762, notwithstanding all they say about 
religion, etc., was composed mostly of the disciples of 
Voltaire. 

A Parliament thus constituted could be readily im- 
posed upon. It required only a few conspirators to 
accomplish this. It is a fact well shown by the testi- 



JESUITS 



217 



mony of history, that a legislative assembly, from its 
constitution, is as readily deceived in times of prejudice 
and excitement, as the same number of individuals taken 
promiscuously. Such assemblies are peculiarly sensitive 
to outside clamor. They readily believe almost anything 
that they think is popular. This fact is shown by the 
history of the English Parliament. This body was de- 
ceived to such an extent as to believe the repeated per- 
juries of Titus Oates and others, and many innocent 
persons were sent to the block in consequence. In 1666 
the city of London was burned, and the conflagration 
charged upon the Catholics. It was believed, and a 
monument erected and inscribed, commemorating the 
supposed dark deed, of which Pope has this expressive 
couplet : 

" Where London's column, pointing to the skies, 
Like a tall bully, lifts its head, and lies." 

A few years ago, the corporation of London had the 
magnanimity to have this inscription chipped off. 

To accomplish the suppression of the Jesuits in France, 
the Infidels knew, could not be done by any outward 
attack of theirs. They stood as declared enemies of 
religion. The plan was to operate upon the Parliament. 
They knew from the examples in the English Parliament 
how easy this could be effected, when the prejudices of 
the members were appealed to. It was easy to reproduce 
this forged Secreta Monita, originated by some anony- 
mous calumniator in 1616. All they had to do was to 
palm it upon the Parliament as the work of the Jesuits. 
That was easily done. Ever since Joseph had the silver 
cup concealed in the sack of Benjamin, this expedient 
was well known. It was used by Joseph from a good 
motive, but it has been resorted to by malicious persons 

in every age. No artifice is more frequently practiced, 
16 



218 



JESUITS 



or is more easily accomplished. Cases of the kind have 
often occurred in every country. Two men were once 
partners, and had some difficulty in their settlement. 
One became the violent enemy of the other, and per- 
secuted him on every occasion. The persecuted deter- 
mined he would leave the Kingdom and emigrate to 
America to avoid his implacable enemy. In preparing 
to make his departure he went to London and took a 
room at a public house. His old enemy met him in the 
streets, and watched him go into his room. The next 
morning his enemy watched the room until he saw him 
leave and go into the street. His enemy then went to 
another room on the same floor, and stole a watch, and 
secreted it in his victim's room. The owner of the watch 
missed it, and gave the alarm. This man was by, and 
informed the police that a very suspicious character 
lodged in a certain room. Of course they searched the 
room and found the watch. The victim was arrested, 
protested his ignorance of the whole matter, was tried, 
convicted, and executed. Years afterwards, his mur- 
derer was brought up to receive sentence for some 
criminal offence, and before the court, admitted that he 
had caused this man's execution. 

The circumstances stated, show clearly, that such an 
artifice was used upon the occasion of the alleged dis- 
covery of this Secreta Monita. The very haste with 
which the Parliament acted in reference to so im- 
portant a measure, shows they had been informed that 
such a work would be found. Intimations had been no 
doubt given out that if such a hasty measure was adopted 
the insidious Jesuits would be caught. Having suc- 
ceeded in procuring the passage of such an act, it was 
easy for a single individual to carry with him the book 
concealed under his dress, and when the apartments of 



JESUITS 



219 



the college were searched, to place this book among the 
others found there. It required but the act of a single 
individual — one of the police, or any other individual 
who was permitted to go there. 

How easy it is, if we depend upon such testimony, 
to ruin any man's reputation, or the character of any 
body of men. Such a system of reasoning places all 
good men at the mercy of conspirators. And when the 
charge upon its face, is so utterly absurd and imprac- 
ticable, and beyond all reason, such a circumstance ought 
not to weigh as a feather against a body of men so 
numerous — so distinguished — so much in the way of 
its opponents — and for whose suppression there ex- 
isted so many manifest motives. To ruin such a body 
of men, if sensible and just men can believe such mighty 
charges upon such testimony, requires nothing but a 
want of principle — a small amount of cunning — and 
the adroitness of an ordinary rogue, in a single in- 
dividual. 

Having succeeded in obtaining the suppression of the 
order in France, the next step was to secure its suppres- 
sion in other states, and finally by the Pope himself. If 
we examine into the character and motives of the prin- 
cipal men who took the leading part in these violent 
measures against the order, we shall see that they were 
just the men to urge them onward. They were generally 
either avowed or secret enemies of religion, and especially 
of the Catholic system. As a very candid Protestant 
writer, speaking of the persecution of the Jesuits by the 
Portuguese government, and the destruction of their 
college at Pernambuco, says : 

" Reader, throw a veil over thy recollection for a little 
while, and forget the cruel, unjust, and unmerited cen- 
sures thou hast heard against an unoffending order. 



220 



JESUITS 



This place was once the Jesuits' College, and originally 
built by those charitable fathers. Ask the aged and re- 
spectable inhabitants of Pernambuco, and they will tell 
thee, that the destruction of the society of the Jesuits 
was a terrible disaster to the public, and its consequences 
severely felt to the present day. 

" When Pombal took the ruins of government into his 
hands, virtue and learning beamed within the college 
walls. Public catechism to the children, and religious in- 
struction to all, flowed daily from the mouths of its 
venerable priests. They were loved, revered, and re- 
spected throughout the whole town. The illuminating 
philosophers of the day had sworn to exterminate Chris- 
tian knowledge, and the College of Pernambuco was 
doomed to founder in the general storm. To the long- 
lasting sorrow and disgrace of Portugal, the philosophers 
blinded her King, and flattered his prime minister. 
Pombal was exactly the tool these sappers of every public 
and private virtue wanted. He had the naked sword of 
power in his own hand, and his heart was as hard as 
flint. He struck a mortal blow and the society of Jesuits, 
throughout the Portuguese dominions, was no more.'' 
(Wanderings in South America, By Chas. Waterton, 
Esq.; p. 82.) 

The Pope was induced to suppress the order in 1773. 
In the Brief of Clement XIV. he is careful not to say 
that he believed the charges to be true, but on the con- 
trary, bases the suppression upon the grounds of ex- 
pediency and for the sake of peace. The parliament of 
Paris restored the order. In 180 1 it was restored in 
Russia, and in 1814 in Sardinia, and in 1814 by Pope 
Pius VII. The King of Prussia, though Protestant, did 
not suppress the order in his dominions, but fostered it. 
He did not believe the charges. 



JESUITS 



221 



It has been the misfortune of this order to incur the 
hostihty of Infidels, and especially those of Europe. We 
see that an Infidel brought the Secreta Monita to the 
United States. The distinguished novelist, the Infidel 
Eugene Sue, in his late work, the Wandering Jew, has 
imputed to the Jesuits all the dark and horrible traits of 
his own vitiated imagination. 

This order is evidently a foe worthy of their steel, 
and in their way. Unable to meet their arguments and 
exertions by fair means, they resorted to forgery and 
base imposition to suppress the order. They succeeded 
for a time under a state of clamor and excitement. But 
justice, though slow, is certain, and the order has been 
restored. It had once many enemies among Catholics, 
but these have dwindled to a very few. 

That these charges against the entire order are absurd 
and barefaced fabrications, I have no doubt. That in- 
dividuals of the order, as individuals of any and every 
body, have sometimes erred, I have as little doubt. They 
would be more than men if they had not. That the sup- 
pression of the .order by Clement XIV. was mainly pro- 
duced by the exertions of Infidels in that Infidel age, I 
have no doubt. And that the clamor is still attempted 
to be kept up by persons whose interests or prejudices 
render them capable of believing any charge, supported 
by even tlje semblance of testimony, against their op- 
ponents in religion, I have no doubt. 

The charges, if made against individuals of the order, 
would not affect the order itself, in the minds of just men ; 
and when made against the entire order, assume a shape 
so monstrous, unreasonable, and absurd, that I do not 
think any impartial and well-informed man could be de- 
ceived into a belief of them. When I first read them, I 
was a Protestant, and all my sympathies were with 



222 



JESUITS 



Protestantism; but this charge of universal and un- 
mitigated depravity against so numerous a body of men, 
was rather too heavy a draft upon my credulity. 

It seems to me that every good man should be very 
careful to be just to others. The rule of sweet charity 
is the only one under which human virtue can live. It 
is better to allow too much merit to men than too little. 
Men are frail enough, and their virtues are sufficiently 
scant; but when we detract from that little, and accuse 
them of monstrous crimes they never committed, we cer- 
tainly commit a most grievous sin against them, and 
especially against ourselves. If we err in imputing too 
few sins to our fellow-creatures, we may be called weak, 
but not criminal. We at least lean to the side of charity. 
But if we impute to them crimes they never committed, 
we commit ourselves, a grievous fault; for we are com- 
manded to "Judge not, that ye be not judged: for with 
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It is a 
fearful thing for us to judge harshly and unjustly, as 
we must expect to be judged by the same rule. 

These considerations satisfied me that the Jesuits were 
an eminent, devoted, yet misrepresented body of men. 
And when I find what I take to be slandered merit, I 
hesitate not to avow myself its friend ; for I do not know 
what other rule a good man can follow, than to do that 
which is strictly right in itself, and trust in God and his 
country. Too many well-disposed men are apt to flinch 
from a good, but unpopular victim ; but 'tis not so 
above." Innocence is purer when persecuted, and virtue 
is never so beautiful as when calumniated and despised. 
It was so in the beginning. It must always be so. And 
I cannot but think that if any good and impartial man, 
who has taken up an impression that such wholesale 
charges are true, will re-examine the question calmly 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



and dispassionately, he will enjoy that sweet and gener- 
ous pleasure which a just man feels when he finds he has 
been mistaken in supposing that his brother had been 
guilty of a crime. 

Charges against certain Popes, 

Among other charges made by Protestant controver- 
tists against the Catholic Church, is the wicked character 
of some of the Popes. The instances can be seen in the 
debate of Campbell and Purcell, and in the controversy 
of Hughes and Breckenridge. 

The most general and sweeping charges I found in the 
Dissertation of Dr. Spring, on page 71, where the learned 
Divine says: 

" But it is a fact that no Romanist will deny, that the 
Popes of Rome, as a body of men, have been a disgrace 
to the human race." 

This statement must have been made at random, for 
I found it contradicted by every Catholic writer whose 
works I read at the time and since, who spoke upon the 
subject at all. I have not been able to find a Catholic 
writer who did not deny it, when the subject he treated 
made it proper for him to notice the charge. All those 
that I have read very cheerfully admitted that the con- 
duct of some individual Popes had been scandalous and 
wicked, while they insisted that the great majority were 
worthy of the station they filled, and many of them 
martyrs and saints of the first character; and that these 
wicked Popes did not bear a greater proportion to the 
whole number, than Judas did to the twelve. . 

These charges related to some of the Popes of the 
middle ages. Those of the first ages of the Church are 
admitted to have been saints; while those of the later 
ages are admitted, by Catholic and Protestant writers, 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



to have been unexceptionable in their moral deportment : 
as by the Protestant writer Ranke, in his history of the 
Popes, as stated by Dr. Wiseman in his Moorfield Lec- 
tures. (Lece VIII.) 

In making these and other charges against the Catholic 
Church, both Mr. Campbell and Mr. Breckenridge quoted 
Du Pin as an authentic Cathohc historian. But his char- 
acter as such was denied by both Bishops Hughes and 
Purcell. 

It appeared that Du Pin had a secret correspondence 
with Archbishop Wake, with a view to the union of the 
English and Catholic churches. His secret papers were 
examined on the loth of February, 17 19, at the Palais 
Royal in Paris, and it was found as Lafitau testifies, that 
in his letter to Wake, he proposed to give up Auricular 
Confession, Transubstantiation, ReHgious vows, the fast 
of Lent and abstinence, the Supremacy of the Pope, and 
the celibacy of the clergy. He was also secretly mar- 
ried, and after his death, his widow came publicly for- 
ward to assert her right to his property. To support 
his authority, Mr. Campbell read the certificates printed 
with the work, and purporting to be the approbation of 
the doctors of the Sorbonne. Two of these certificates 
purport to be signed by " Blampton, Rector of St. 
Merris; and Hideux, curate of St. Innocents," and one 
by the former only. They approve the work as contain- 
ing " nothing contrary to the Catholic faith or to good 
manners," but do not approve or disapprove the work 
as authentic history. 

The Doctors of the Sorbonne were appointed by the 
king. The authority is not of the highest grade, though 
respectable. Du Pin at the time he wrote his history, was 
not suspected of any hypocrisy. He was a very dis- 
tinguished writer, and stood high with his associates. 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



His work was voluminous and the hasty reading of an 
author of his standing, in an historical work so ex- 
tended, would not enable anyone to judge properly of 
its historical character. A work upon doctrine or morals 
can be judged very soon by any competent divine, but 
a work on history, so extensive, would be far more diffi- 
cult. It would require time and patient investigation 
to detect its errors. Such approbations are too often 
given hurriedly, the judge relying too much upon the 
standing and character of the author. Besides, Du Pin 
was a Jansenist, and was censured by Pope Clement 
XL, even during his lifetime; and Louis XIV. removed 
him from the Sorbonne, which was approved by the 
Pope. (Debate C. & P., 32, 37. Con. H. & B., 372.) 

It may be possible that Du Pin was an authentic his- 
torian ; but certainly he appears under circumstances 
most suspicious. An honest man may be a member of 
a certain church, and may write its history, and that 
work may be good authority after he has changed his 
faith, and left the Church. But when a man remains a 
traitor in a church, and seeks to betray it, and lives a 
hypocrite while in it, there is no trusting him for any- 
thing. A man of distinguished ability, and yet a hypo- 
crite, would naturally seek in the most insidious manner 
possible, to injure the Church of which he was a mem- 
ber. He could not but hate a church whose faith he 
could not believe; and he could not but have some fell 
purpose when he believed one thing and told another. 
Who can trust such a man? 

Mr. Campbell did indeed state that he relied upon him 
only in so far as he is sustained by other historians ; but 
as he continued to quote from him, after objection was 
made by Bishop Purcell, and after Mr. C. had read the 
objections of Bishop Hughes, as he states himself, (De- 



226 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



bate C. & P., 28) I could not well understand his rea- 
sons. If, as he asserted, Du Pin was sustained by other 
historians, it certainly would have been more satisfactory 
to have read entirely from them. 

Herein I remarked a great and palpable difference 
between the course of Catholic and Protestant controver- 
tists. I found the Catholics generally quoting from the 
most eminent and reliable Protestant writers and his- 
torians, men of the most unblemished character, private 
and public, while on the contrary, I found Protestants 
generally quoting from the most unworthy and suspicious 
Catholics, such as Du Pin, Father Paul, Thuanus, and 
others. The debate between Elder Campbell and Bishop 
Purcell is a proof of this. So is the controversy between 
Hughes and Breckenridge. And if any man of fair mind 
will calmly watch both parties, he will soon see which 
most relies upon unworthy authority. 

Mr. Breckenridge quotes " Thuanus, Book 37, p. 776," 
as a Catholic historian, to prove alleged corruptions at 
Rome. In reference to whom. Bishop Hughes says: 
" The history of Thuanus has been condemned at Rome, 
by two public decrees ; the one of November 9, 1609, the 
other of May 10, 1757, from which fact the reader may 
see, with how little propriety he assumes to be called a 
* Roman Catholic historian.' ' He was,' says a modern 
author (Paquot), 'an audacious writer, the implacable 
enemy of the Jesuits ; the calumniator of the Guises ; the 
copyist, flatterer, friend of the Protestants; and was far 
from being even just to the Holy See, the Council of 
Trent or anything Catholic' " (Con. H. & B., 372.) 

But aside from these disputed and not trustworthy 
historians, from the testimony of Baronius and other 
authentic Catholic historians quoted by Mr. C. and Mr. 
B., there can be no doubt of the scandalous lives of cer- 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



tain Popes, such as Stephen VIL, Vigilius, Alexander 
and others. 

The whole number of Popes has been nearly two hun- 
dred and sixty. " Of these," says Bishop Purcell, " the 
first forty were saints, or martyrs ; a small number only, 
not more than twenty can be called bad men; the rest 
were remarkable for eminent virtue, charity, zeal, and 
learning, and patronage of letters." (Debate C. & P., 
146.) Mr. Breckenridge and Mr. Campbell asserted that 
the number of bad Popes was greater than twenty, and 
Mr. C. quotes Genebrard, who says, under the year 904, 
For nearly one hundred and fifty years, about fifty 
Popes deserted wholly the virtue of their predecessors, 
being apostate rather than apostolical ; " but the ac- 
curacy of this statement as to the number is denied by 
Bishop Purcell. And, indeed, the statement seems very 
loose and general. Such statements are not often 
accurate. 

As to the exact number of Popes who disgraced their 
position, it is difficult at this time, to determine. That 
injustice has been done to some of them, there can be 
but little doubt. It must seem obvious to sensible men, 
that the character of a prominent man depends greatly 
upon the temper of the age in which he lived. There 
are often many causes, and a peculiar concurrence of cir- 
cumstances, that involve a man's reputation in doubt in 
some cases, and in ignominy in others, when his motives 
were good, and when his measures, under the existing 
circumstances, were the best that could have been adopted. 
The bitter prejudice, or inveterate enmity, of a single 
able and influential individual, in an age when books 
were few, (for the reason that the art of printing was 
then unknown,) might do the greatest injustice to the 
person whose history is sought. Nothing but a patient 



228 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



and careful examination of the contemporary manuscript 
documents on file in the various extensive libraries of 
Europe, can enable us to do anything like justice to the 
Popes of the middle ages. When I have been induced 
to examine charges against individuals, I always go to 
them for their side of the question ; for I never could get 
all the truth from their enemies. Most cases of the kind 
are overdone. Men are prone to have victims of some 
kind. We see it often in communities, in reference to 
particular persons. The public must blame some one, 
and from some cause or other, it matters not what it is, 
censure starts in a particular direction, and when once 
under way, it is as difficult to stop as a mountain torrent. 
It must run its course. Even good men are often swept 
along with it. It is even so in business. All hands rush 
into great excesses at intervals. Human nature is prone 
to varied and unsteady courses. 

Most of these scandalous excesses of the Popes oc- 
curred in a certain period, and about the tenth century. 
As several bad Popes lived near each other, it is very 
natural for historians, as well as the people of that age, 
to confound both good and bad, and place them in the 
same class. Poor Tray suffered for being in bad com- 
pany, and some of the Popes who lived in the Middle 
Ages, may have suffered from the misfortune of having 
governed the Church at that period of time. Even the 
most pious and candid writers, from their very detesta- 
tion of vice, may, in their melancholy moments, do great 
injustice to those who, though guilty of some faults, are 
not guilty to the extent supposed. It has become a habit 
to censure everything done in those ages; and doubtless 
there was much to be blamed. But this habit, like all 
other habits, may have misled even just men. Those 
ages were not distinguished for great learning, and the 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



people of those times were encompassed with difficulties 
of the most oppressive character. They have, therefore, 
few friends to do them justice, and many disgusted and 
interested enemies to reproach their memory. The 
natural tendency of human opinion is to elevate some 
favorite ages to the skies, and to depreciate even the 
real merits of those that are despised and neglected. 

But justice should be done. The genuine truth ought 
to be known. And it appears that of late, a better spirit 
begins to show itself. " Within the last ten years," says 
Dr. Wiseman, (Moorfield Lee, L. viii.,) "a succession 
of works has been appearing on the continent, in which 
the character of the Popes of the Middle Ages has been 
not only vindicated, but placed in the most beautiful and 
magnificent point of view. And I thank God that they 
are, as I just said, from a quarter that cannot be sus- 
pected — every one of the works to which I allude being 
the production of a Protestant. We have had, within 
these few years, several lives, or vindications, of the 
Pontiff who has been considered the embodying type of 
that thirst for aggrandizement which is attributed to the 
Popes of the middle ages. I speak of Gregory VIL, 
commonly known by the name of Hildebrand. In a large 
voluminous work, published a few years ago by Voight, 
and approved by the most eminent historians of modern 
Germany, we have the life of that Pontiff drawn up 
from contemporaneous documents, from his own corre- 
spondence, and the evidence of both his friends and 
enemies. The result is, and I wish I could give you 
the words of the author, that if the historian, abstract 
himself from mere petty prejudices and national feeHngs, 
and look on the character of that Pontiff from a higher 
ground, he must pronounce him a man of most upright 
mind, of a most perfect disinterestedness, and of the 



230 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



purest zeal; one who acted in every instance just as his 
position called upon him to act_, and made use of no 
means, save what he was authorized to use. In this he 
is followed by others who speak of him with an en- 
thusiasm which a Catholic could not have exceeded ; and 
of one, it has been observed, that he cannot speak of that 
Pontiff without rapture." Of these other Protestant 
writers Dr. Wiseman gives in a note the names of 
Eichhorn, Luden, Loo, and Muller. 

" We have had, too, within the last two years, another 
most interesting work, a Life of Innocent III. one of the 
most abused in the line of Papal succession, written by 
Hurter, a clergyman of the Protestant church of Ger- 
many. He again has coolly examined all the allegations 
which have been brought against him; and has based 
his studies entirely on the monuments of the age; and 
the conclusion to which he comes is, that not only is his 
character beyond reproach, but that it is an object of 
unqualified admiration. And to give you some idea of 
the feelings of this work, I will read you two extracts 
applicable to my subject in general. Thus writes our 
author : ' Such an immediate instrument in the hands 
of God, for securing the highest weal of the community, 
must the Christian of these times, the ecclesiastic, and 
still more, he who stood nearest to the center of the 
church, have considered him who was its head. Every 
worldly dignity works only for the good of an earthly 
life, for a passing object; the Church alone for the sal- 
vation of all men, for an object of endless duration. If 
worldy power is from God, it is not so in the sense, and 
in the measure, and in the definitiveness in which the 
highest spiritual power of these ages was ; whose origin, 
development, extent, and influence, (independently of all 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 231 

dogmatical formulas,) form the most remarkable appear- 
ance in the world's history.' 

" In another passage he thus speaks : ^ Let us look for- 
ward and backward from any period upon the times, and 
see how the institution of the Papacy has out-lasted all 
the other institutions of Europe; how it has seen all 
other states rise and perish ; how, in the endless changes 
of human power, it alone invariably has preserved and 
maintained the same spirit ; can we be surprised, if many 
look upon it as the rock which raises itself unshaken 
above the stormy waves of time ? ' " 

I am satisfied myself, that the vices of those ages have 
been much exaggerated. I admit most cheerfully that I 
am but partially acquainted with the history of those 
times. My pursuits have led me into other fields of 
inquiry. But my opinion is formed upon general prin- 
ciples — upon my ideas of the nature of men and things. 
If the literature of an age happens to be inferior, the 
scholar turns from it with indifference, if not with dis- 
gust. In such cases, few, if any, will feel any interest 
in doing justice even to the solid virtues and common 
sense of that age. Their faults are narrated in harsh 
and severe terms, while their virtues are not recorded in 
the glowing pages of polished eulogy. I like to read 
the correspondence of men — public and private — when 
I wish to understand their characters. In all my ex- 
perience — in all my travels in different modes — in 
cities — at taverns — and in all other positions, the most 
just and certain mode I could ever adopt to find out the 
true character of people, was to let them tell their own 
story — to state their own principles, and then to watch, 
calmly and impartially, the general drift and spirit of 
the narrative. Men will generally talk of that which 
they love most. I never met an unprincipled man, that 



232 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



I know of, except in one solitary instance, that did not 
unduly elevate talent above integrity. Such men in- 
variably put forth some vicious principle, or applaud 
some smart, but dishonest trick, in some one else. An 
unprincipled man, one who is so habitually, will never 
fail to show it in his own statements. There will be a 
vein of vicious principle found somewhere in his dis- 
course. A man must be a supreme adept at hypocrisy 
that can wear the mask always. He must be remark- 
able for his patience and perseverance. 

In estimating the character and conduct of the Popes 
of the middle ages, we must place ourselves back in the 
circumstances that then existed, we must enter into the 
spirit of those times, and take things as we find them. 
We must remember that men, nations, and ages must 
be judged with reference to their opportunities and posi- 
tions. The middle ages succeeded the fall of the Roman 
Empire in the West, and the terrible scourge of the 
Saracens in the East and South. Literature, science and 
arts had suffered extensively by these devastations. It 
was emphatically the period of misfortune. The very 
fact that nearly all of the bad Popes existed at one period 
in this long line of succession, is, of itself, almost con- 
clusive proof, that the circumstances of the times mainly 
produced these sad delinquencies. Making, then, every 
fair allowance, there seems to be no doubt that some 
twenty out of near two hundred and sixty Popes have 
been wicked men. And their excesses have been freely 
condemned by Catholics, whose histories record these 
vices. These Popes followed each other by succession. 
That in a long course of ages, instances of personal 
misconduct would occur even among the Popes, must be 
expected. 

What then is the legitimate effect of these scandals 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 233 



upon the Catholic system? Are they abuses, or are they 
the natural result of the system? Do they prove that 
the Papacy never existed? that it could be thus for- 
feited? or that the misconduct of a few individuals, at 
intervals in the long line of her history, has destroyed 
the true church? 

In considering this matter, we must distinguish be- 
tween personal and official misconduct. In personal mat- 
ters men act for themselves — in official matters — for 
others. In one case they exercise personal and inherent 
natural rights — in the other they are clothed with de- 
legated powers. To confound these, is to confound the 
most manifest distinctions — distinctions which must 
exist where government exists. 

As I have elsewhere stated, I never understood that 
Christ had guaranteed the personal virtue of His minis- 
ters. He left the personal free agency of all men un- 
touched. But when men act as His agents, and for Him, 
then I understand that He did guarantee their official 
acts-. A true prophet cannot lie. He is not permitted 
to do so. And it is conceded as a plain principle of law, 
that the agent, from the nature of the relation, is not 
free in reference to the business of his principal, except 
when discretion is given. Christ did not leave the 
apostles any discretion. They were bound to testify and 
teach the whole truth, and only the truth. So, if Christ 
g^uaranteed the integrity of the Church, then her official 
acts must be right, as to all matters within the guaranty. 

The Popes; like all men at the heads of great institu- 
tions, were placed in a position where they had every 
incentive to do good, and yet were exposed to very try- 
ing temptations. Many persons who held the High- 
priesthood under the Jevv^ish dispensation disgraced the 
position, from Heli to Caiaphas, who was a wicked man 
17 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



and a good high-priest, as Mr. Campbell says. Aaron 
made the golden calf. But all these sad instances of 
human infirmity did not destroy the office, nor forfeit 
the existence of the institution. Is the church then re- 
sponsible for the personal vices of these Popes? Could 
the Church take away their free agency, and prevent 
their sins? 

When we come to take a view of the general official 
conduct of these Popes, we find one of the most beau- 
tiful proofs of the invincible stability of the Church. It 
is indisputable, and now conceded by many, if not by 
most Protestant writers, that the alleged errors of the 
Roman Church were introduced long before the main 
portions of these disorders occurred, if they were not 
in the Church at the beginning. It is true, some at- 
tempts are still made by particular controvertists to prove 
that at least a portion of them originated after these 
scandals commenced. But any one can easily see that 
this is untrue, by a very slight examination of the proofs. 
It is also true, that in the Pontificates of some of these 
Popes, Christianity was extended by their exertions into 
several savage countries. In fact, some of the greatest 
conquests made to religion occurred at those periods. 
There were no new heresies introduced — there was no 
cardinal doctrine of faith lost. This showed unity — 
this showed diligence — this showed integrity as to faith. 

How then can we account for these great and illus- 
trious results, but upon the hypothesis that the faith of 
the Church was protected by Christ, as He had promised ? 
Looking to that age — the times — the circumstances 
when these scandals existed, and what other Church 
could have ridden out the terrible storm ? Could Protes- 
tantism (which has only existed for about three cen- 
turies, and that in the most fortunate and enlightened 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 235 



period of the world, and has yet severed and divided into 
so many fragments,) have withstood this trial? 

When we look into the matter carefully, there is some- 
thing wonderful in this history. For the Catholic says 
to himself : " As the old Church withstood all this, what 
can she not withstand? Is she not invincible under cir- 
cumstances that have crushed all existing institutions? 
They died out like falling stars — she shone on. They 
were — she was, and is, and is to be. It was the glory 
of our Lord to stand alone. So it is with His church." 

And the more the opposers of the Church urge these 
disorders, the more they strengthen the conviction in 
the mind of the Catholic, that it is impossible for the Old 
Church to have sustained herself under such untoward 
circumstances, without the help of Christ. What Christ 
has instituted, men cannot destroy. They have power 
over the works of their own hands, but here their power 
ends. Despite the desolation of the Goth and Vandal — 
the ravages of the invincible Saracen — the trials and 
evils of the age — and above all, the personal wicked- 
ness of some of her own Chief Pastors, the Old Church 
faltered not, but kept the faith, preached the Gospel to 
the world, and actually extended the Master's Kingdom. 
She, of all the institutions of the world, has lived un- 
scathed through that day. Amidst all the ruin, she alone 
held up her head. 

"As some tall cliff, that lifts its awful form, 
Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm, 
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread, 
Eternal sunshine settles on its head." 

In my reflections upon this subject, I could not but 
consider the triumph of the Church, under such circum- 
stances, as one of the most forcible and beautiful proofs 



236 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



of the truth of Christianity. It did show that the Lord 
Jesus was to be trusted. That even the personal mis- 
conduct of her own children — of her own chief officer, 
could not ruin the work of Christ. He had said it should 
be so, and it was so. 

I could not but wish to put these questions to those 
who exaggerate these personal sins of the Popes : " My 
friends, the more you overdo these allegations, the more 
difficult, I apprehend, you make your own case. You 
say, in substance, that there was no virtue in the Papacy. 
Where, then, was that wonderful virtue that saved the 
Church? Under your supposed state of case do give us 
some good reason for that wonderful preservation of the 
Church. There was evidently great vitality and virtue 
somewhere. Your alleged true church had to change its 
faith and features very often to live at all; and in these 
trying times, was not on the field of battle. Or if so, 
did nothing. Was it * buried beneath the darkness of 
those ages,' as Waddington says ? If so, why did not that 
darkness overwhelm the Catholic Church? Was the 
Protestant true Church alone unable to hold up her head 
in the stern hour of trial, while the alleged false church 
did all the good that was done? And what Church did 
save Europe from Barbarism? What Church saved 
Christianity, if not the Catholic? You have certainly 
much fault to find with her. But who won the victory 
over the savage and the Saracen, but the Catholic 
Church? In short, who else did anything for learning, 
virtue, civilization, and religion in those most perilous 
times ? Her children had many vices, no doubt, but their 
trials were such as you have never witnessed." 
Speaking of those times Mr. Wheaton says: 
" The influence of the Papal authority, though some- 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



times abused^ was then felt as a blessing to mankind : 
it rescued Europe from total barbarism; it afforded the 
only asylum and shelter from feudal oppression." 
(Wheaton's History of the Laws of Nations, 33.) 

And the Rev. John Lord, in his introductory essay to 
the Chronicles of Sir John Froissart, says : 

" Moreover, the Papacy was a great central power, 
needed to control the princes of Europe, and settle the 
difficulties which arose between them. The Popes, what- 
ever may have been their personal character, were con- 
servators of the peace. They preserved unity amid 
anarchy, and restrained the impulses of passionate kings. 
Again, the Papacy in the best ages, is thought by many 
profound historians to have been democratic in its sym- 
pathies. It guarded the interests of the people: it pre- 
served them from the violence of their oppressors: it 
furnished a retreat, in monasteries, for the contemplative, 
the suffering, the afflicted, and the poor." 

There are many brave men who have much theoretic, 
but very little actual blood to shed upon the battle- 
field, who nevertheless complain loudly of the alleged 
errors of those who won the victory. Had they but been 
there, the difficulties might have been much greater than 
they appear in the distance. Men are generally brave at 
a safe distance, and generally virtuous, in the absence of 
temptation. It is easy to find fault. The less we know 
of a matter, the more fault we can find, in many cases. 
You have lived in the most favored age of the world, 
after the great art of printing was invented in 1444, 
and America discovered in i"492, and the consequent re- 
vival of literature, and the arts, and the extension of 
commerce; and you have still committed many grievous 
errors. True, you can boast of the number of your small 



238 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



and diversified Churches, as the fox did of her numerous 
progeny, while the Catholic theory can only boast of one ; 
but that is a lion.'* 

Could these disorders destroy the office of Popef 

In reference to the effect of these disorders of the 
Popes, Mr. Campbell has a summary position as follows : 

" If Christ gave any law of succession, that suc- 
cession has been destroyed by a long continuance of the 
greatest monsters of crime that ever lived, and by cabals, 
intrigues, violence, envy, lust, and schisms so that no man 
can believe that one drop of apostolic grace is either in 
the person or office of Gregory XVI., the present nominal 
incumbent of Peter's chair." (Debate C. & P., 139.) 

It will be seen that this language is sufficiently con- 
fident and strong, to sustain any sustainable position. 
But with deference to the logic and opinion of the learned 
debater, there are some reasons that seem to render 
doubtful the entire conclusiveness of his position. 

The essence of this bold assumption is, that an individ- 
ual officer could not only forfeit his right to the office, 
by his own misconduct, but he could go farther, and de- 
stroy the office itself. In other words, the office created 
by Christ — His own work — could be destroyed by 
the acts of individuals. This is a startling proposition, 
and leaves all future generations at the mercy of those 
who precede it. Under this theory, I cannot understand 
how Christ could be a Divine Lawgiver, when he created 
so poor an institution as to be within the power of men. 

I had supposed that the continued existence of the 
Church, with all the offices created by Christ, was de- 
pendent upon His will, and not upon the personal vir- 
tues or vices of individuals. It may be, that though Our 
Lord did promise to protect the Church against the gates 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



of Hell^ He did not mean to bind Himself to protect her 
against the gates of men. I had thought that both the 
creation of the office of Pope, and the consequent con- 
tinuance of same, depended upon the will of the Founder 
of the institution, and not upon the will of men. 

I am aware that inferior corporations, which are but 
the creatures of statutory enactments, may forfeit their 
charters by nonuser or misuser; because such is a part 
of the law of their creation. The misuser is the act of 
the controlling majority of the stockholders, and is, 
therefore, the act of all. 

But this doctrine cannot apply to governments. 
Political governments may be changed at the pleasure 
of the founders ; but the act of making such change is 
the act of the sovereign power. If it should happen that 
the President should commit treason, this would only 
forfeit his right to fill the office, but the office itself would 
remain unimpaired. The office was not created by him — 
was not his work — was made by the nation, and the 
Nation alone can unmake or destroy. If twenty Presi- 
dents in succession were to commit all the crimes pos- 
sible, the office would still remain. The People might 
be induced to change the form of the government, but 
such change would be their act, not the act of those 
Presidents. 

And is not this so with the Church? The Church 
is not an inferior corporation, but a supreme govern- 
ment. Christ is the head and founder of this kingdom, 
with subordinate officers under him. These officers were 
created by His act, and cannot be destroyed by the vices 
of subordinates. The office of Pope, if established at 
all, was created for some great and beneficial purpose. 
The Christians of all ages are equally entitled to these 
benefits, as subjects of the kingdom. They cannot be 



240 CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



deprived of them by the personal vices of preceding 
Popes. It would be unjust that they should. If Christ 
had been a mere fallible lawgiver, and had made a mis- 
take in creating the office, He might be induced to abolish 
it; but having had an eye, as Mr. C. justly says, to all 
the future in all He did, such a supposition cannot be 
indulged. 

The idea that a perpetual office, created by Christ him- 
self, in His own Church, against which the gates of Hell 
shall never prevail, could be abolished by the vices of in- 
dividual incumbents, is a supposition too hard for me to 
understand. If that office could be abolished by the vices 
of incumbents, every other office in the church could be 
destroyed in the same way, and unless re-established 
by Christ, the Church itself must fail, as no institution 
can exist without offices. If the Church is to be con- 
sidered as an inferior corporation, and the office of Pope 
could be destroyed, then the whole corporation must fall. 
For such inferior corporations, by nonuser or misuser, 
do not forfeit the right to a particular office, but they 
forfeit their entire existence. The law would hardly 
mutilate and cripple the corporation, and still expect it, 
after thus being maimed, to perform the functions it 
failed to do, when whole and entire. 

The whole force of the argument against the exist- 
ence of the Papacy, upon the ground of the personal 
delinquencies of individual Popes, at intervals in the long 
line of succession, is based upon the essential error of 
confounding individual acts with 'official duties. It is 
true, that a man may be a good officer, and a bad man. 

This distinction between personal and official conduct, 
I find admitted by most Protestant writers on some oc- 
casions, and then practically denied by them on others. 
We have seen the admissions of Mr. Campbell and Mr. 



CHARGES AGAINST POPES 



Rice, when arguing against each other. But when Mr. 
C. was debating with Bishop Purcell, he had not then 
discovered that Caiaphas could be a very good high- 
priest, though a bad man. Time improved his views. 

When an officer fails to use his legitimate powers in 
proper cases, or when he abuses or perverts them, or 
usurps powers not belonging to the office, then he is a 
bad officer. His personal sins may injure his official use- 
fulness indirectly, by reason of the destruction of con- 
fidence in his official conduct. But in the contemplation 
of the theory they are distinct, and are so, in point of 
fact, in many cases. Official delinquency does not 
necessarily follow from personal vices. The reason of 
this is plain. Men have different views of things, and 
there is a difference in criminality in different acts. A 
man may commit one class and not the other. All men 
commit some sins ; and yet there are sins that few will 
commit. A man may be guilty of many personal sins, 
and yet regard his official obligations as sacred, because 
he considers that his personal vices affect himself mostly, 
while his official misconduct would affect others. When 
we assume that the official acts of a wicked clergyman 
are void, we certainly go beyond the truth. I knew a 
most eminent preacher, who baptized many persons in 
Mr. C.'s church, who has fallen away in California, giv- 
ing pretty conclusive evidence that he never was sincere. 
Was the baptism administered by him void, in the con- 
templation of Mr. Campbell's theory? Or was the truth 
proclaimed by him, void, because falling from his lips? 
Is the true coin vitiated simply because it has passed 
through the hands of a rogue? 



CHAPTER X 



WHAT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECTS OF THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM, 
IN THOSE MEMBERS WHO HAVE FAITHFULLY REDUCED 
ITS TEACHINGS TO PRACTICE? 

In estimating the effects of any system of religion, the 
only fair and just method would seem to be, to take those 
who humbly receive, and faithfully reduce to practice, its 
faith and morals, in their true spirit, as taught by the 
church herself. It is surely true, that individuals, under 
all systems, will err and come short of their duty. But 
after making a fair allowance for these cases, which no 
system can prevent, then take the best members of each 
communion, and see which has produced the greater 
number of saints, those noble and heroic souls, whose 
piety most resembles the spirits and acts of the early 
Church. 

Character of the Reformers. 

It is not my purpose, as the limits of my work would 
not allow me, to enter into a minute and full investiga- 
tion of the character of the principal agents in bringing 
about the so-called Reformation, in point of that holi- 
ness, humility, and gentleness required by Christianity. 
I can only refer to the works of Dr. Milner and others, 
who have treated this subject at large. I gave the ques- 
tion the best examination I could do under the circum- 
stances, and I must say, that the result was the convic- 
tion in my own mind, that the Reformers were not the 

242 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 243 



best models of Christian virtue. It seemed to me as an 
eminently just sentiment, that men who assumed to re- 
form the entire Church should have been the best models 
of piety. The apostles were so. 

I could not find in the lives, conduct, or language of 
the early reformers, any prominent and continued dis- 
plays of that humility and disregard of self, which surely 
do constitute the most conclusive tests of personal piety, 
of the first order. I was much struck, upon my first ex- 
amination, with the remark of Dr. Milner, that we had 
not the same reason to expect the same amount of per- 
sonal virtue in those officers who follow one another by 
succession as we had in reformers. The account given 
by the Duchess of York, of her own conversion, is one 
of the most beautiful and simple statements I have any- 
where met, and made a deep impression upon my mind 
when I first read it. It bears upon its face the sure 
marks of sincerity. It is found entire in the Duke of 
Brunswick's Fifty Reasons. This eminent lady says 
among other things : And first I do protest in the 
presence of Almighty God, that no person, man or 
woman, directly or indirectly, ever said anything to me, 
(since I came out of England,) or used the least en- 
deavor to make me change my religion. It is a blessing 
I wholly owe to Almighty God ; and, I hope, the hearing 
of a prayer I daily made Him, ever since I was in France 
and Flanders. Where, seeing much of the devotion of 
Catholics, (though I had very little myself,) I made it 
my continual request to Almighty God, that if I was not, 
I might, before I died, be in the true religion. I did 
not in the least doubt but that I was so, and never had 
any manner of scruple until November last, when I read 
a book called ^ The History of the Reformation, by Dr. 
Hoylen,' which I had heard very much commended, and 



244 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



had been told if ever I had any doubt in my reHgion, 
that would settle me. Instead of which I found it the 
description of the most horrid sacrileges in the world; 
and could find no reason why he left the Church, but 
for thesCj the most abominable ones that were ever heard 
of among Christians : First, Henry VIII. renounces the 
Pope's authority because he would not give him leave to 
part with his wife, and marry another in her lifetime. 
Secondly, Edward VI. was a child,, and was governed by 
his uncle, who made his estate out of church lands. And 
thirdly, Queen EHzabeth, who, not being lawful heiress 
to the Crown, could have no way to keep it but by re- 
nouncing a church that could never suffer so unlawful a 
thing to be done by one of her children. I confess that 
I cannot think that the Holy Ghost could ever be in such 
counsels; and it is very strange that if the bishops had 
no design (as they say) but restoring to us the doctrine 
of the primitive church, they should never think upon it 
till Henry VIII. made the breach, upon so unlawful a 
pretence." This lady afterwards says in another place: 
"After this I spoke severally to two of the best bishops 
we have in England, both of whom told me there were 
many things in the Roman Church which it were much 
to be wished we had kept, as confession which was no 
doubt commanded by God. That praying for the dead 
was one of the ancient things in Christianity; that, for 
their parts, they did it daily, though they would not own 
it ; and, afterwards, pressing one of them very much up- 
on the other points, he told me that if he had been a 
Catholic, he would not change his religion ; but being of 
another church, wherein he was sure were all things 
necessary to salvation, he thought it very ill to give scan- 
dal by leaving that church wherein he received his 
baptism." The prelates referred to were Sheldon, Arch- 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 245 



bishop of Canterbury, and Blandford, Bishop of Wor- 
cester. 

In my examination of the history of the Reformation, 
I became satisfied that if we exclude from our considera- 
tion the opinions and conclusions of the most candid 
Protestant historians of the Reformation, and confine our 
attention to the main and undeniable facts they them- 
selves record, and from these facts and our knowledge of 
men and things — their motives, passions, and actions — 
we will be forced to draw these conclusions: i. That 
ambition, love of wealthy and thirst for distinction, had 
more to do with that event than religion itself. 2. That 
the bishops and clergy who joined the Reforrnation gen- 
erally followed the lead of others, and very seldom went 
before. 

If we look to England, for instance, we shall find, that 
of all the English bishops in the time of Henry VIII. 
the venerable Fisher was the only one who loved his re- 
ligion well enough to die for it — ^that even when the 
clergy, either during his reign or afterwards, remon- 
strated against and opposed the proposed changes, their 
scruples were almost overcome, and they seldom resisted 
unto death. If we look to the continent, the same gen- 
eral result will follow. Luther, Melancthon, Bucer and 
others, granted the Landgrave of Hesse a dispensation 
to marry another wife, while he did not even put away 
the first. But when Henry VIIL, who had been a zeal- 
ous defender of the Pope, solicited a dispensation to put 
away his wife, and marry another, the Pope refused. 
And to the firmness of the Pontiff in resisting such a de- 
mand, is the success of the Reformation in England 
mainly to be attributed. 

If we also take in connection the Catholic historians 
of that day, and put them also, side by side with the 



246 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



Protestant, and take the great leading facts recorded by 
both, or sufficiently proved by one, when either omitted 
or denied by the other, there can be but little doubt, it 
occurs to me, as to the conclusion that must follow. 

The Catholic clergy make much greater sacrifices than 
the Protestant, 

I did not confine my attention alone to the conduct of 
both parties during the progress of the Reformation, in 
estimating the effects of the two systems. I looked also 
to general causes. 

I found, upon examination, that the Catholic clergy 
made far greater personal and worldly sacrifices than the 
Protestant. They dedicate themselves to the ministry 
exclusively — they give up all temporal hopes — they 
debar themselves from marriage — they come under the 
commands of superiors — they go to the uttermost 
bounds of the earth when required — and they devote 
their whole lives to the single performance of their du- 
ties. The Catholic clergy look upon celibacy, when vol- 
untary and for the greater glory of God, as a higher 
state than matrimony, and that it is revealed in Scripture. 

Not only do they make greater sacrifices than the 
Protestant, in giving up so many privileges dear to hu- 
man nature, and so highly esteemed by Protestant clergy- 
men generally ; but they take upon themselves a ministry 
far more laborious, painful, and hazardous. They have 
the preaching of the gospel to do as well as the Protes- 
tant ; and besides this, they have, in addition, other duties 
to perform, still more arduous. The discipline of the 
church to which they belong is far more rigid and 
strict than that of the Protestant, and far more rigidly 
executed and enforced. For the CathoHc clergyman is 
not only under the strict supervision of his superior, but 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 247 



he is bound by his vows to perform his duty regularly. 

As Christ enjoins constant prayer, the church requires 
all her clergy, from the sub-deacon to the Pope, daily 
to say the Seven Canonical Hours, consisting chiefly of 
scriptural Psalms and Lessons, which take up in the 
recital near an hour and a half in addition to their other 
devotions. In reference to fasting, the Church of Eng- 
land in her Homily iv. uses this language : " That we 
ought to fast is a truth too manifest to stand in need 
of any proof." In pursuance of this sentiment, that 
church enjoins in her Common Prayer Book the same 
days of fasting and abstinence with the Catholic Church ; 
that is to say, the forty days of Lent, the Ember days, 
all the Fridays in the year, etc. But who observes these 
rules? Who keeps these days? Where is the Protes- 
tant to be found who imitates the example of old Paul 
and the early Church, in their frequent fastings? After 
all the ridicule which has been, or can be, thrown upon 
the practice of fasting, is it not founded in apostolic 
practice, in reason, truth, and right? Is it not bene- 
ficial, in and of itself? Is not man a creature that needs 
discipline at every step of his existence? Does he not 
need a trial — a test — a sacrifice — at all times ? If he 
never could forget his duty — his dependence — his end ; 
— in other words, if he was perfect without the use of 
discipline, it might not be so. And if the practice was 
not eminently beneficial, why did the early church ob- 
serve it so much? There must have been some good 
reason for such a practice, in that day of light, certainty, 
and devotion. 

Among the regular and painful duties of the Catholic 
clergyman, may be mentioned that of hearing confes- 
sions. This duty requires much time, labor, patience, 
study, and attention, as well as the qualities of clear dis- 



248 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



crimination and mild firmness. Those outside the 
Church hardly can know how great the labor of the 
confessional is, and the amount of true patience required 
to discharge well its delicate and important duties. The 
Confessor must not only hear the narration of the vices 
and sins of each individual — those painful errors so 
humiliating to human nature — but he must suggest a 
remedy for the ten thousand diseases of distressed souls, 
who tell their sins, their mistakes, and their shortcom- 
ings to him. He has to deal with every variety of 
character and disposition — the selfish — the obstinate — 
the reckless — the passionate — the wayward — the idle 
— the overscrupulous — the imaginative — and the timid. 
In short, with every variety of character, from the re- 
pentant criminal to the humble saint. That such duties 
are onerous and painful, as well as laborious and re- 
sponsible, would seem to require no proof with the sensi- 
ble and reflective mind. 

But the most painful and arduous, because the most 
irregular, the most sudden and dangerous, of the duties 
of the Catholic clergy, is the sick call. However poor, 
destitute, and unworthy the sick person may be, it is 
the imperative duty of the priest to go and see him. 
There can be no excuse short of the most insurmount- 
able obstacle. The poor dying soul has a right to the 
last sacraments of the church. And the priest must go. 
It does not matter what may be the personal danger or 
inconvenience to himself, he must go. Through the 
darkness of midnight, beneath the withering summer's 
sun, or facing the scathing blasts of winter, through 
storm and calm, he must go. And when the pestilence 
and famine rage, he must still go. He has undertaken 
a sacred duty and has pledged his life to it. It must 
be discharged. He professed himself a true under- 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 249 



shepherd of the flock, not a hireling, and he must lay 
down his life for the sheep, and not desert his flock in 
the hour of danger. His rigid Church permits no recre- 
ancy in the discharge of such a trust. He cannot flee. 
He must stand and die in the deadly breach. Did he 
not deliberately and voluntarily undertake to drink this 
cup, and must he not drink it ? In this ministry he meets 
with tears, and groans and agonies. He has no smile 
to greet him, but the sweet smile upon the lips of the 
departing saint. 

But besides these sacrifices and labors, the whole spirit 
of the Catholic system tends to merge the importance of 
individuals in that of the church. She is everything — 
individual fame and importance, comparatively, nothing. 
The Catholic clergyman knows that the important func- 
tions performed by him, are equally performed by others. 
He knows that the very vestments he wears, while per- 
forming his official duties, belong not to him, but to the 
church. The only advantage he can gain over others, 
is in the more faithful discharge of his duties ; and this 
can only be obtained by increased labor and devotion. 

Before he becomes a minister in the Catholic Church, 
if he is proud and vain of his own personal qualities and 
appearance, he had better not enter her ministry, if he 
expects to indulge these passions ; for he wifl find him- 
self checked and mortified at every step. If he has not 
the faith and moral nerve to face death deliberately in 
the discharge of his duty, at every step, when required, 
he had better desist. If he is self-willed, head-strong, 
obstinate, and fond of flattery, he had better not go 
there. If he is like Demosthenes, whose brilliant orations 
elicited only one response from the Athenians, " Let us 
rise and march against Philip ; " but who, when Philip 
and his armies appeared, was among the first to flee, he 
18 



250 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



had better not undertake the daily sacrifices to be found 
in this laborious and devoted ministry. 

These sacrifices, labors and dangers, are more con- 
clusive evidences of deep and abiding faith and devotion, 
than all the eloquent discourses ever delivered. These 
are the decisive tests that cannot be disputed. They are 
simple, practical, and certain. In vain may the motives 
of such men be assailed. Such grapes do not grow 
upon thorns. Men do not voluntarily live poor, work 
hard, and die willingly, from improper motives. And 
when I see the Catholic clergy always at their posts, 
ready to die with the members of their suffering flocks, 
and so many of them thus falling martyrs to their duty, 
while so many Protestant clergymen (with some noble 
exceptions), so promptly act upon that saying, "A wise 
man foreseeth the evil, and fleeth therefrom," I cannot 
but draw the conclusion that there is, and must be, some 
great radical difference in the two systems. One seems 
studiously adapted to keep alive and perpetuate the 
apostolic spirit of self-abnegation, while the other is as 
studiously adapted to suppress it. 

If an aspirant to the Protestant ministry be self- 
willed, and fond of his own opinions, among the five 
hundred sects in Protestant Christendom, he will be very 
apt to find one to suit him ; but if not, he can organize a 
new sect to suit himself, and the older Protestant sects 
cannot consistently assail him upon the ground of in- 
novation. If they do, he has ample materials for refuta- 
tion and triumph. Let him join with one if he will, he 
is free to settle where he pleases, and to stipulate for 
his salary. If he be a man of talents, and a popular 
speaker, he can obtain a much larger salary. The mat- 
ter rests with him and the particular congregation. The 
church does not interfere. If he be ambitious, and fond 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 251 



of public meetings, the offices of the country are open 
to him, and hence we find them in our legislative halls, 
both State and Federal. 

In short, the Protestant clergyman, preaches as long 
as he pleases — to whom he pleases — and if the minis- 
terial duties do not please him, and anything preferable 
should offer, he is at liberty to lay aside the clerical 
profession at his own election. He lives as well, dresses 
as well, has all the comforts of home, wife, children, and 
friends ; for the Protestant clergy, taken as a class, enjoy 
as many of the comforts of life as lawyers, physicians, 
and other professional men, while their labors are not 
more arduous, if so much so. In short, they have all 
the privileges of their lay brethren, and are required to 
make no more sacrifices. Such are the general facts 
with reference to the general Protestant ministerial sys- 
tem. There are some exceptions in reference to a por- 
tion of these particulars, in some of the Protestant 
churches. The Methodist clergy are under a more rigid 
discipline than those of other Protestant sects. There 
may be other exceptions as to some other parties. 

These characteristics of the Protestant ministry have 
made it a mere profession, sought as a means of making 
a living, like other professions, in too many cases. It 
is a profession lucrative to some, and comfortable to the 
great majority. It is true, that the great majority of 
Protestant ministers cannot hope, if they wished, to make 
a fortune; but it is equally true that the great majority 
of every calling and profession cannot expect to grow 
rich; and that most men are well satisfied if they enjoy 
the ordinary comforts of life, without being rich. And 
it is Very natural that a system of Christian ministry 
which requires very few, if any, sacrifices, affords com- 
fortable livings, and imposes only moderate labor, must 



252 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



necessarily contain a greater number of venal and un- 
worthy ministers. 

Is it, then, at all surprising, that in the hour of ex- 
treme danger, when the rigid test of acts, and not of 
words, is applied, so many Protestant ministers flee from 
their flocks, and leave them to take care of themselves? 
that when the sickly season approaches in New Orleans, 

the eloquent Mr. , the powerful Mr. , and 

the declamatory Mr. , should leave their flocks for 

a pleasure trip to the North, and return with the re- 
turning frosts in the Fall? or that so many should have 
left Norfolk during the prevalence of the Yellow Fever 
there ? 

The eloquent senator from Virginia, Hon. R. M. T. 
Hunter, in a speech made in 1855, in Virginia, uses this 
chaste and touching language : 

" Deprive," said he, " the Catholics of all the offices, 
bar them out from every avenue to political distinction, 
deny to them the opportunities which you have accorded 
to Infidels and Atheists; and when you have done it 
all, when you have placed their honest ambition to enjoy 
the honors and emoluments of political preferment under 
the ban of a ruthless proscription, your work is not yet 
finished. There will still remain offices for them. Yes, 
my friends, the sweet offices of Christian love will still 
be left, and in the midst of your persecutions, their 
bishops and priests, as in the recent pestilence in your 
Southern cities, will throng the hospitals and pest-houses, 
bringing succor and consolation to the poor victims of 
the plague. Aye, and their sisters of Charity will still 
brave the terrors of loathsome and infectious disease, 
will still wipe the death damp from the suffering brow, 
will still venture in where the courage of men shrinks 
back appalled, and will point the dying gaze through the 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 253 



mysterious gloom of the Valley of the Shadow of Death, 
to the Cross and the Crucified." 

I will also quote from a late able and manly letter, 
written by Judge Longstreet, a distinguished and worthy 
member of the Methodist Church. Speaking to the 
Methodist preachers of the Catholics, the Judge says : 

" To hate their reHgion is to hate your own religion, 
which they adorn just at this time, much more than you 
do. * No man that warreth,' says Paul, ' encumbereth 
himself with the affairs of this life.' The Catholic priest 
obeys this precept strictly. But where are you — some 
of you at least? Candidates for this, that, and the other 
office — going from beat to beat, and county to county, 
stumping it for votes — haranguing the multitude amidst 
thumps, and screams, and yells — firing at opposition, 
and almost coming to blows — telling vulgar anecdotes 
— suppressing truth — encouraging, if not spreading 
falsehood. These things are not done in a corner; and 
yet if any bishop, any Elder, any Deacon, any brother, 
any press of our church, has raised a warning voice 
against them, except my poor solitary self, and one old 
brother more, I have yet to learn who, when, or where. 
From the holiest chamber of my soul, I lift a prayer to 
God to have mercy upon us, and save our church from 
degradation and ruin. Brethren, I am not near done 
with you but I must stop. My powers of calm discussion 
are suspended. My heart and my eyes take up the cause 
of my perilled church, in utterances which you might 
appreciate, but which I cannot expose to the ridicule of 
an unfeeling world." 

There is a melancholy vein of truth and sincerity run- 
ning through this extract, that cannot be mistaken. But 
the state of things so feelingly deplored by the Judge, 
must inevitably flow from the theory of Protestantism, 



254 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



sooner or later. It is one of the legitimate results. Let 
anyone read the history of the Protestant churches from 
the days of Luther down to this time, and he will find 
the same decHne of the apostolic spirit. New Reforma- 
tions will be constantly required. What Wesley did for 
the Church of England, some one else will have, sooner 
or later, to do for the Methodists. 

In reference to the great mass of Protestants and 
Catholics, the difference between their observable con- 
duct as Christians may not be great and may be very 
similar. I bear a most cheerful testimony to the per- 
sonal piety of great numbers of Protestants with whom 
I have associated. So far as practical morality is con- 
cerned — that which regulates our conduct as citizens and 
neighbors — I have not found much difference among 
men of any denomination. I have found the qualities 
of kindness, sobriety, and integrity among many un- 
believers, in a great degree of perfection. So far as the 
practice of that morality is concerned which renders men 
happy in a state of society, and prosperous as a com- 
munity in this world, I apprehend there is no very marked 
difference among professed Christians of different de- 
nominations. 

But the system of Christianity has a design beyond 
this. It looks not alone to man's happiness here. Vir- 
tues that alone produce an improved state of society, are 
not the principal objects of the system. Dr. Paley admits 

that the teaching of morality was not the primary 
design of the mission " of Christ. In another place he 
says : " For however the care of reputation, the au- 
thority of public opinion, or even of the opinion of good 
men, the satisfaction of being well received, and well 
thought of, the benefit of being known and distinguished, 
are topics to which we are fain to have recourse in our 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 255 



exhortations ; the true virtue is that which discards these 
considerations absolutely and which retires from them all 
to the single internal purpose of pleasing God." 

Reflections. 

In reference to Mr. Campbell's claims to be a re- 
former, Mr. Rice remarks : 

" I do not remember to have seen a man who pretended 
to religion of any kind, who did not consider himself 
rather more orthodox than others. This is a common 
weakness of human nature. It displays itself every- 
where, and especially in men who imagine themselves 
to be great reformers, and beheve all but themselves in 
serious error. If it be true, as my friend evidently thinks, 
that of all the world, he only, and those who agree with 
him, are in the Hght, whilst all Christendom grope in 
midnight darkness ; it follows, as a necessary consequence, 
that he is one of the most orthodox men. There can be 
no doubt about it." (Debate 761.) 

There is certainly great force and truth in this state- 
ment. But while it applies to Mr. Campbell, does it not 
equally apply to Mr. Rice? How stands the case with 
him? Did not Luther, his predecessor and head, make 
even greater pretensions than Mr. Campbell? Luther 
not only claimed that all " Christendom groped in mid- 
night darkness," but he claimed the right to reform it, 
not only because he understood the Scriptures better 
than any other man who then lived, or had lived during 
the preceding thousand years, but also in virtue of an ex- 
traordinary mission, attested by miracles. 

But how natural it is for men to lay down one rule 
for themselves, and another for others. Even the man 
who steals from others, complains bitterly if another 
steals from him. When Luther claimed the right to 



256 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



reform the Church of Rome, he denied the right to 
Zuinglius and others to reform his Church. Calvin, who 
resisted Luther's pretensions to the entire right of re- 
formation, and claimed an equal right for himself, never- 
theless was instrumental in having Servetus burned for 
assuming the same right. And in all cases, the older 
Protestant sects declaim loudly against all new-comers in- 
to the common domain of Reformation. But in con- 
demning others, they inevitably condemn themselves. 

All the bad and immoral men in Christendom are, 
at least, infidels. They all belong to that class. The 
natural instincts of their conduct lead them there. There 
is something so utterly inconsistent between the belief 
of Christianity and the practice of gross immorality, that 
the two cannot be found together. Many men, however, 
who do not believe in Christianity, are yet practically 
good men as citizens and neighbors. But it is a great 
and gratifying fact, and a most powerful argument in 
favor of Christianity, that all the bad and wicked men 
are on one side, and at heart opposed to it, whatever 
may be their professions. 

And so all the demagogues and fanatics in religion are 
Reformers, as Mr. Rice justly says. They are one and 
all the incessant advocates of the principle of private 
interpretation in the last resort. Demagogism and 
fanaticism in religion cannot, in the very nature of 
things, be found in the Catholic system. They cannot 
live there. There is no demagogical or fanatical oxygen 
in that atmosphere. There is nothing there for them to 
feed upon. Their necessary and indispensable food is 
found outside. There being nothing in the creed of that 
Church to reform, and nothing changeable in her in- 
fallible theory, such a watchword is not permitted to 
be used with reference to her articles of faith. It would 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 257 



be as logical to speak of reforming the original law of 
Christ, as to speak of reforming a creed assumed to be 
infallible. Whoever, therefore, embraces that creed, can- 
not say reform in reference to the creed itself. It is a 
word unknown to a stable religious system of faith. 
And it is a gratifying fact, and a strong argument in 
favor of the Catholic system, that all the demagogues 
and fanatics in religion are opposed to it. They are 
invariably found all on one side, and against it. 

While I cheerfully admit that all reformers were not 
demagogues or fanatics, truth compels me to say that I 
think most of them have been so. Admitting that I may 
be mistaken as to the proportion, yet it is clear that the 
Protestant principle produces the very and only food up- 
on which they can live. While it produces this food 
in superabundance, it provides no efficient and consistent 
check to its use. Under the fundamental and supreme 
rule of individual and independent interpretation, what 
was allowed to Luther must be allowed to the Lutherans ; 
and what was allowed to Calvin and his colleagues, must 
be allowed, under the same rule, to others. Mr. Camp- 
bell, had, therefore, the common right existing under, 
and guaranteed by, the rule itself. What check, then, 
is there upon demagogism and fanaticism in the Protes- 
tant theory? Nothing but the opinion and judgment of 
each individual. And in the war of contending dema- 
gogues and fanatics, how shall they decide? How have 
they decided in the past? Let facts and history answer. 

Mr, Campbell's theory of Protestant union. 

In reference to the difference among Protestants, Mr. 
Campbell says: 

" There are one or two Protestant sects who differ 
in some important matters, and are as repugnant to each 



258 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 

other as are Jansenists and Jesuits in the Roman Church ; 
but all Protestant sects unite in several acts of religious 
worship, in acknowledgment of the same code of morals, 
and in the positive institution of Christianity, such as the 
Lx)rd's day, the Lord's supper, baptism, prayer, praise, 
etc. Sects and differences exist which ought not: but 
still they harmonize as much in their general and special 
bonds of union^ as do the Romanists themselves. What 
are the Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, 
etc., but orders (or sects) called after the different 
saints? " (Debate C. & P., 175.) 

The essence of this statement, if true, is based upon 
the principle of compromise or compensation. Mr. C. 
says, in substance,, if we are divided, so are you. If 
this were true, it might well be asked, What, then, has 
your alleged Reformation accomplished? Has it pro- 
duced any greater union? 

But are the assumed facts here stated, true? What 
does a calm, fair, and dispassionate detailed examination 
of the differences existing among Protestants, show? 
Mr. C. says they agree in " several particulars. That 
is true; but does this agreement in several things con- 
stitute that unity in speaking the same things, and in be- 
ing perfectly joined together in the same mind and in 
the same judgment, as St. Paul has it? All Christians, 
as well as Jews and Mohammedans, agree in several mat- 
ters, but is this unity? 

What, then, constitutes the unity contemplated by the 
law of Christ? Certainly, the same agreement that ex- 
isted in the Apostolic Church. That Church was united 
in the SAME JUDGMENT in reference to ALL 
THINGS held material by the CHURCH HERSELF, 
and in the same CHURCH GOVERNMENT. And it 
must be obvious, that if there be a true visible Church, 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 259 



that she must know herself, and must also know what 
requisites make up her faith; and that, consequently, 
when she decides that certain specified articles are neces- 
sary to her creed, and condemns others as untrue, that 
she must be right. On the contrary if a Church deter- 
mines certain articles as essential to faith, and certain 
other articles as not essential, if there be error in either 
case, that Church cannot be in the right, and cannot, for 
that reason, be the true Church. If, then, two or more 
churches decide differently upon the same matter held 
by them to be essential to faith, it is clear that they can- 
not all be the true Church, or parts of the true Church. 
For example, when Mr. Campbell and his church hold 
that immersion alone is baptism, and that infant baptism, 
in any mode, is null and void, how can such a church be 
a part or a branch of a Church, which holds precisely the 
contrary? And when Mr. C. (as well as Mr. Brecken- 
ridge and other Calvinists) come to speak of Transub- 
stantiation. Confession, and Absolution, as grievous 
errors of the Catholic Church, and make these tenets a 
most material portion of the reasons assigned to justify 
the alleged Reformation, how can they call the Lutherans, 
who hold Consubstantiation, Confession, and Absolution, 
a part of the true Church ? For every sensible man must 
see, that all their objections against Transubstantiation 
apply to Consubstantiation; and that the latter, as the 
Sacramentarians insisted in the days of Luther, is more 
inconsistent with the Scripture than the former, con- 
ceding them both to be_untrue. And how can they claim 
the Church of England as part of this great, .but dis- 
cordant, alleged true Church ? She holds Confession and 
Absolution. And when the great Synod of Dort, rep- 
resenting the entire Calvinistic world, laid down those 
stern Calvinistic doctrines, and expelled the Remon- 



26o EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



strants from their communion, did both these parties 
belong to the same Church? If so, how did the Re- 
monstrants bear the relation of " heathens and publi- 
cans " to the Calvinists ? One party maintained predes- 
tination, election, and final perseverance, and the other 
the reverse ; and the Synod held the Calvinistic doctrines 
as fundamental articles of faith, and the opposite tenets 
as heresy. The Methodists, and all the other five hun- 
dred sects, differ from each other in so many points 
deemed by them, and each of them, so far material, that 
they cannot be induced to unite under one system of 
Church government, having one acknowledged head ; and 
how can they form parts of ONE Church ? The Lutheran 
excommunicates the Calvinist — the Calvinist the 
Arminian — the Baptist the Paedo-Baptist — the Trin- 
itarian the Anti-trinitarian — the Episcopalian the Inde- 
pendent — the believer in the Atonement the Unitarian — 
the Methodist the Anti-nomian ; and yet, under this con- 
fused theory, these different parties, while they are thus 
excommunicating each other, are held to be but parts 
of the true Church, as were the Churches of Jerusalem, 
Antiocli, Ephesus, and other places but branches of the 
Apostolic Church. A Church that does not know itself 
— does not know her faith — does not know the mem- 
bers of her own body, is still the true Church, under 
this most latitudinarian theory. What assistance does 
Christ, the alleged head of this confused Church, give 
to her, when she remains in this state of profound ignor- 
ance of her own faith? Is confused and contradictory 
ignorance an attribute of the one true Church of Christ? 
And if, on the contrary, it be assumed that this mongrel 
Church does know herself and her faith, then why is she 
continually excommunicating her own children for im- 
material errors of mere opinion? 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 261 



The Church of Christ is a kingdom, and a visible 
Kingdom — a united Kingdom. It has but one law for 
its government. This law requires uniform faith in cer- 
tain fixed truths. How, then, can this visible kingdom 
have different governments, antagonistic to and inde- 
pendent of each other, and requiring faith in precisely 
opposite tenets, so that there is one faith for one part, 
and a different faith for another part? Did two or more 
communities, having entirely separate and independent 
governments, each acting for itself alone, ever constitute 
one government, because their citizens or subjects ac- 
cidentally agreed in race, language, customs, laws, and 
manners, and in the forms of government ? How can any 
associated body of men exist, without having one govern- 
ment? Do all the sovereign independent states of the 
civilized world constitute but one government, simply 
because they are all sovereign, and agree, substantially, 
in a great number of particulars? Unity of faith and 
unity of government must exist to constitute the one 
Church of Christ. Separate organizations, each acting 
exclusively for itself, and teaching its creed as its own, 
and for itself alone, never can form the church " spoken 
of so often by St. Paul. 

Mr. C. says that Protestants harmonize as much as 
Romanists themselves, and asks, What are the 
Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc., but 
order (or sects) called after different saints?" 

When I first read this statement, I was under the im- 
pression that these alleged differences among Catholics 
would compensate or balance the undeniable discords 
among Protestants. But there was one reflection which 
forced itself upon my mind with great power : that if 
this assumed state of case was in fact true, then it was 
clear that the true Church, if it existed at all, was in 



262 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



the most wretched and disorganized state, very much like 
a clean neat apostasy from the true original faith. For 
my common sense assured me that this faith was an en- 
tirety — an indestructible whole, consisting of united 
parts — and that the moment one of these parts was 
lost, the identity of the Church was at once destroyed, 
and the promises of Our Lord had clearly failed. I could 
just as easily conceive of a house with nothing but the 
foundation, or of a steam engine consisting of nothing 
but the boiler, as of a true, visible. Catholic, and Apostolic 
Church, which had either denied a single true article of 
faith, or added a single false tenet to the true. If the 
Church could err in one essential particular, and still be 
the true Church, she could err in two or more ; and the 
limit once passed, which was set by the inflexible, whole, 
and entire law of Christ, there could be no bounds 'fixed 
beyond which she could not go. Such an idea was 
utterly destructive of the whole theory, that Christ was 
a divine lawgiver. I could not understand how our Lord 
could ever have contemplated a mutilated Church. I 
could not think that he ever intended that one bone of 
her should be broken; but that while she might be 
wounded by her enemies for the moment, she would soon 
rise, like her Master, still sound, though scarred, and as 
triumphant and beautiful as ever. 

But, I inquired, is it true, as Mr.' C. states? What 
are the genuine facts? 

In reference to the Jansenists and Jesuits, I found that 
they had discussed a theological question, taking different 
sides; and that the Church condemned the Jansenists, 
and that ended the matter with Catholics. 

In reference to the Augustinians and other orders in 
the Church, I found that they were not sects in the just 
import of that word, but were only subordinate com- 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 263 



mimities, organized for different purposes, and having 
different disciplinary rules for their own direction, in 
reference to matters peculiar to each. I found that all 
the members of these diff'erent orders were required to 
believe every article of the creed, in the same way pre- 
cisely, that every member of the Church was required to 
do. They had then the same faith, and were united in 
the same judgment, as were all the members of the 
Church. And not only so, but I found that not one of 
these orders could exist, without the express act and 
consent of the Church — that the Church reserved the 
power to suppress them at any time, and had exercised 
it in particular cases — that the matters peculiar to each 
order did not relate to faith at all, (which was a matter 
they could not touch,) and that they were in everything 
subordinate to the Church. I found also that the ques- 
tions they were allowed to discuss were questions that 
all Catholics were allowed to discuss, being questions 
outside the creed — questions of expediency or of dis- 
cipline, or questions which the Church had not settled 
by any decision ; and that so soon as a decision was made 
on any question, the matter was ended. 

I must confess, that in these orders I could see no 
divisions in the Church, any more than I could see 
divisions in the State, because subordinate municipal, and 
other corporations, were allowed to exist by express acts 
of the Legislature, prescribing and limiting their powers 
to such matters only as do not interfere or clash with the 
exercise of the legitimate powers of the State herself. 
These corporations are the mere creatures or agents of 
the State, deriving all their powders from her, existing 
by her will and pleasure, and are not, therefore, divisions 
producing discord in the government. And so with refer- 
ence to these orders. They derived their existence from 



264 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 

the express act of the Church, exercised all their powers 
subordinate to her, and held their existence at her pleas- 
ure. These powers had no relation to faith, were ex- 
pressly limited to matters indifferent, and were not 
allowed, in any way, to interfere with the powers of the 
Church. They are merely subordinate limited orders, 
organized for special purposes, and governed by dis- 
ciplinary rules, first approved by the Church herself. I 
could see no discord in these orders, nothing antagonistic 
to the Church, unless I could see discord between a 
subordinate and his superior. 

In reference to Protestant divisions, I found the case 
far different in two great and essential particulars: i. 
They differed as to matters of faith, holding precisely 
opposite views in reference to the same matter. 2. They 
each had entire separate and independent Church or- 
ganizations, acting each alone for itself, and acknowl- 
edging no common superior. In other words, they were 
independent associates, having no visible connection. The 
Methodists, for instance, formally decide all questions of 
faith and practice for themselves, and from this decision 
there is no appeal to any other power on earth. So of all 
the others. They are no more connected in government 
(if such a thing exists among them at all) than inde- 
pendent States. Whatever similarity of views, in refer- 
ence to some points, may exist among them, arises not 
from their theories of organization. Each association 
being separate and independent, there can be no sub- 
ordination among them, and no union. 

From his language in his debate with Bishop Pur- 
cell, one would be compelled to infer, that these divisions 
were very slight, except as to the " one or two Protestant 
sects " not specified ; and even as to these, they were not 
greater than the alleged divisions among Catholics. 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 265 



Among other things they all united in, as stated by Mr. 
C, was baptism. When we look to his debate with Mr. 
Rice, and see the grounds he there took, and the language 
there used, we begin to see the mighty chasms that lie 
between the professed views of different Protestant sects. 
Even in Mr. C.'s view, there are some things so different 
from most other Protestants, that they constitute a 
mighty wall of separation. In the debate with Mr. Rice, 
two of the propositions maintained by Mr. C. were: 

Baptism is for the remission of past sins," and immer- 
sion of a proper subject " is the only apostolic or Chris- 
tian baptism." Putting these two propositions together, 
and drawing therefrom the inevitable conclusion, the 
Church that practices sprinkling and infant baptism, has 
no baptism, according to Mr. Campbell, and her mem- 
bers who have been thus sprinkled, no remission of past 
sins. How such could be saved, or how, consistent with 
his views, he could call such a church either the true 
Church, or even a part of it, I am not able to perceive. 
As the overwhelming majority of Protestant sects were 
in this condition, those left as parts of the true Church 
were certainly few. 

After all the confusion that has been thrown over this 
subject by loose and imcertain language, arising from 
confused thought, or from a desire to avoid a difficulty, 
nothing can, it occurs to me, be plainer than this; that 
the Protestant inquirer, under his rule, must be certain 
of two points before he can be certain that he is right : 

1. He must be certain as to the identity of the code 
— he must know that the Bible is the written, and only, 
Word of God. 

2. He must know that he has correctly construed it. 

If he does not know both these points with certainty, 

he does not know his faith with certainty. How then 
ly 



266 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



can it be true, as asserted by Dr. Spring, that the man 
who impHcitly receives the Scriptures as the infalHble rule 
of faith, cannot doubt whether any of his rehgious opin- 
ions are true ? " Does the learned Divine mean to assert 
the proposition, that he who so implicitly receives the 
Scriptures cannot misconstrue them? Or, does he mean 
to say, that while he does so misconstrue them, that the 
simple fact of his so receiving the Bible, will make him 
certain, even while he is in the wrong? Or does he mean 
to take the clean neat position, that, while all Protestants 
profess to receive implicitly the Scriptures as their in- 
fallible rule of faith, they only so receive them who 
properly construe them? If so, does he mean then to 
say, that all Protestant sects but one, do not so receive 
them? Or does he mean to admit, that while numbers, 
or even the majority of each sect, so receive the Bible, 
and yet give it such discordant constructions, they can- 
not still doubt whether any of their religious opinions 
are true? In other words, that the simple fact of so 
receiving the Scriptures is, in and of itself, efficient to 
remove all doubt from the minds of all those holders 
of opinions so contradictory? As if the fact that twenty 
different lawyers all agreed as to the indentity of the 
statutes, would make each one certain that his own con- 
struction of them was right, when different from that of 
each of the other nineteen. 

If the position be true, that such a reception of the 
Bible is efficient to produce such certain conviction, is 
it not clear that it does so without reason and against 
the truth? What sort of a rule is that which produces 
this fatal repose, while believing the most contradictory 
tenets, and holding the most opposite opinions ? " There 
is a way which seemeth to a man right, but the end 
thereof is death." 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 267 



I cannot understand the proposition in any other' 
sense. The language is plain, clear, and certain. If a 
man implicitly receives the Scriptures, he cannot doubt 
whether any of his religious opinions are true, whatever 
those opinions may be. This is but another struggle to 
find a substitute for the Catholic certainty. As the same 
learned divine had before said, " The human mind re- 
luctantly rests short of certainty. Indeed, without this 
it does not rest at all," he was bound to propose some 
rule which would produce this certainty, or leave his 
readers in the dark. 

When I first read the dissertation of Dr. Spring, up- 
on the Rule of Faith, I was a Protestant. His state- 
ment that the human mind does not rest at all without 
certainty, I could not but admit as unequivocally true. 
But the rule he gave me to attain it gave rise to the most 
serious reflections. After examination and consideration, 
I became satisfied that his position was fatally erroneous 
in one of two particulars ; namely : either it could not pro- 
duce that certainty; or if it did, then this certainty was 
not founded upon reason or truth, but was a mere tem- 
porary certainty, that might do to live upon, but would 
never do to die by. 

While engaged in this examination, and during its 
progress, my reflections ran substantially in this way: 

" All Protestants profess to receive the Bible implicitly, 
as Dr. S. requires: and yet I have no doubt it is true, 
as he states, that 

" Great multitudes, who have been religiously educated, 
and more who have not been so, while they have a pre- 
vailing belief that the Scriptures are a divine revelation, 
have by no means the conviction of certainty on this great 
subject." While I must believe this, I am also com- 
pelled to believe that a large portion of the members of 



268 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



the various Protestant parties are sincere, and do im- 
plicitly receive the Scriptures, as the rule of Dr. S. re- 
quires. And yet, while they do so receive it, they 
unequivocally disagree in its interpretation, and hold the 
most opposite doctrines. Although Dr. S. speaks of 
a remarkable uniformity in their views, where can this 
remarkable uniformity be found? He has, indeed, re- 
ferred me to the early creeds, drawn up mostly within 
the first fifty years of the alleged Reformation, by only 
two parties of Protestants, Lutherans and Calvinists, and 
before they had divided into so great a number of sects 
as now exists ; and even in these creeds the discrepancies 
were great and manifest, and were held material by the 
parties themselves, at the time the creeds were made. 
The Lutherans held the Sacramentarians as heretics, 
heathens, and publicans, and not as brethren of the same 
church. And the Calvinists so held the Lutherans for 
many years, and then only permitted them to communion 
about the time the theory of an invisible Church was 
invented. When I look into their creeds, these dis- 
cordant views are held as doctrines of Scripture; and 
there is no marked distinction in each creed to show 
where the fundamental doctrines end, and the indifferent 
opinions begin. If I consider all the points of difference 
between Protestants, or between the principal sects, as 
matters indifferent, and this contrary to their own creeds, 
how much will there be left of fundamental Christianity ? 
For instance, can I say a man has free will, or that he 
has it not ? — or that he will certainly persevere because 
predestinated, or that he may fall — that Christ is really 
present in the Eucharist, or that He is not — that infant 
baptism is valid, or that it is void — and so of every 
other difference, and yet all these views be held as mat- 
ters indifferent? Can I say that Christ has made no 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 269 



revelation upon these points of difference? If I say He 
has, by what sort of logic can I say His revelation is 
unimportant ? Why revealed, if not to be believed ? And 
how can a mere fallible interpreter mark the line that 
separates the revealed fundamental, from revealed, but 
immaterial, doctrines? If, then, these various sects 
differ in fundamental doctrines, it is clear they cannot 
all be right. It is equally plain they cannot form parts 
of the true visible Church. She ever must be a unit, 
with the same faith, and the same government. And if, 
on the contrary, these sects agree in fundamentals as 
asserted, then why do they not unite? What excuse 
can be given for ruinous divisions, so much deplored by 
Dr. Spring himself, as well as other Protestants, when 
they only differ about trifles? Or is it in the wise and 
irrevocable purpose of the Great Redeemer, that division 
and discord should be written, in letters of living light, 
upon the front of every sect that has ever separated from 
that Church which holds the governing principle of au- 
thority, from the beginning of Christianity even to the 
present time? 

Despite the statement of Dr. Spring, is it not palpable 
that, while Protestants have had great difficulty in 
implicitly receiving the Scriptures, they have had still 
greater difficulty in their construction, as the five hun- 
dred sects in Protestant Christendom do most abund- 
antly show? Under the Protestant fundamental rule, I 
must construe the Bible for myself. God, according to 
the rule, has made my mind the only tribunal. If I trust 
to the opinions of others, and believe upon their au- 
thority, while my own mind does not itself understand 
the proof, then I violate the will of God, and become 
subordinate to an independent equal. I can, therefore, 
take nothing upon authority. I must examine, and be 



270 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



myself convinced in reference to each particular point. 
Who am I? A mere fallible man. My judgment and 
my opinion I cannot rely upon, any more than upon 
the judgment and opinion of any other man of the same 
sincerity, diligence, opportunity, and capacity. It is true, 
the rule itself compels me to rely upon myself; but so 
far as correctness and certainty of construction are con- 
cerned, my chance to be right would be just as great 
in following the judgment of another person. The fact 
that it is my opinion, ought not to give me any more 
assurance of its truth, than the fact that it is the opinion 
of another individual. Unless I deceive myself by self- 
love and personal vanity, this must be true. If I should 
deceive myself, would that deceive the great and just 
Judge? What have I to gain by self-delusion but my 
own ruin? 

I am not only thrown upon my own judgment by the 
Protestant rule itself, but by another overwhelming con- 
sideration. For if I adopt the creed of any one Protestant 
sect, (and I cannot adopt any two or more of them,) 
I find the overwhelming majority, even of Protestants, 
against me. If I consult all the sects that have separated 
from the Church of Rome, from the days of Simon 
Magus to those of Luther, I find each and every one, 
without one solitary exception, against me. When I go 
to the Catholic Church, I find the overwhelming majority 
of all professed Christians, saints, and martyrs, of every 
age in her exclusive communion — and they too are all 
against me. 

I am, then, invincibly thrown back upon my own in- 
dividual fallible judgment; for if I rely upon authority 
at all, under the Protestant rule, which admits of no 
infallibility, then I must take the voice of the majority, 
and I cannot, upon any principle of common sense, prefer 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 271 



the authority of one, to that of ten persons, all equals. I 
must stand unsupported, solitary and alone." 

I was always told the Bible was a plain book, easily 
understood. But after all, I often thought I could see 
some things hard to be understood, and yet that must be 
understood. And whether other Protestants find these 
things hard to understand or not, the fact is palpable, 
that they are always explaining and re-explaining this 
plain Bible ; and what is still more surprising, they never 
can explain it alike. They seem to explain the meaning 
quite away. The more loudly and the more unanimously 
all Protestants continue to assert that the Bible is a very 
plain book, and easily understood, the more utterly at a 
loss I am to understand why it is they differ so much 
about so plain a matter as the construction of so plain a 
book. There must be some deep, fundamental, and 
efficient reason for this. There is a great and radical 
wrong somewhere. Is it because Protestants are too 
learned ? Or is it because they study the Bible too much ? 

I am but a man. I am no wiser or better than others. 
I cannot reasonably have any more confidence in my in- 
dividual judgment and construction of the Scriptures, 
than I can in those of any other man of equal capacity, 
sincerity, and means of information. Certainty I must 
have, or I cannot rest. Where then can I find it? 

Shall I be compelled to seek elsewhere than in any 
Protestant communion for that consistency, system, and 
unity, that did unquestionably dwell in the Church of 
Old? Must I be driven, at last, into the alleged Man 
of Sin " — the " Great Apostasy " — the best-abused 
Church in the world? That Church against which 
charges enough, and grievous, are made, if true, to sink 
a universe ? The alleged false — the base — the corrupt 
— the venal — the cruel — the apostate Church? The 



272 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



oldest, and yet the most unpopular — the most hated — 
the most suspected — the most despised — -of all the 
Churches of Christendom ? Is it possible that I must go 
there to find that faith, and that certainty, that will 
satisfy a hungry, but honest soul? How can I endure 
the thought of confessing my sins to a mere man? My 
pride says I cannot, but grace whispers you can, if truth 
requires you." And so I will, if it is right. I resolve 
to follow truth, wherever it may lead me. There's reason 
and sense in truth. There's logic and honesty in it. 
There is certainty and there is consistency in it. Let me 
only know it. If it can be found in the Old Church, 
I go there. The consequences I will take. If such a 
step subjects me to censure, I will bear it. I would 
rather suffer in this world than in the next. It may 
subject me to many evils for a long time. 

What of that? Unlimited space is wider than the 
world, and eternity longer than Hfe. Heaven and all 
that heaven means are worth a struggle — a sublime 
and manly struggle. Was Christianity ever designed to 
be popular with the mass of evil in this world? Does 
it indulge men's passions ? Does it pamper pride ? Does 
it flatter men in any way ? Oh ! no. It could never have 
cost so much if it did. He who wins heaven must 
struggle. He must be prepared to resist the onset of 
earth. He must expect its dire opposition. He must 
fight. 

The faith of the old Church after all this mighty mass 
of acrimonious and passionate accusation, may be the 
pure and holy faith once delivered to the saints. She 
has always, and at all times, and in all places, for more 
than fifteen hundred years, as conceded by many of her 
enemies, claimed it to be true. It may be that her very 
firmness in resisting all ambitious novelties, has brought 



EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 273 



upon her the unceasing opposition of all sectaries, in 
every age and clime, of whatever tenets and character; 
and her very consistency, her beauty, her invincible cour- 
age, may have brought against her the malice and 
ridicule of all infidels, past or present. If we concede 
that she is the true church, for the sake of the argument 
only, (and she may be such, as the thing is possible,) 
then would not the bitter and relentless opposition of all 
the proud, the vain, the ambitious, be levelled against her ? 
Would not every demagogue in religion — every wild en- 
thusiast — every man of a cold, suspicious disposition — 
every self-willed individual, be against her? Did not our 
Lord say, " Woe unto you when all men speak well of 
you : for so did their fathers of the false prophets " ? 

There is something remarkable in the history of this 
venerable old Church, even as stated by her enemies. 
Her continued existence for so long a period, under this 
alleged accumulation of errors, is one of the most re- 
markable circumstances in the world's history. The 
more errors are charged upon her, and the more bitter- 
ness there is displayed in attempting to sustain these 
allegations, the more difficult it is to account for this 
remarkable moral phenomenon. If, indeed, she be the 
true Church, then her unfailing existence is accounted 
for ; because the promises of that poor, despised Nazarene 
never yet did fail. Slander never did make a modest 
charge — malice always lays it on thicker and thicker 
— and hatred forever overshoots the mark. 

I will, then, look into these charges calmly and dis- 
passionately. I will endeavor to make a fair and just 
allowance for individual human frailty. I will judge 
the past by the circumstances existing in the past. I 
will try to place myself back in the olden time. I will 
interrogate the distant ages gone by. I will commune 



274 EFFECTS OF CATHOLIC SYSTEM 



with the venerable departed. I will judge them by that 
charity wherewith I wish to be judged. At least so far 
as my poor abilities will allow. I will then make up 
my mind, and upon that conviction I will act. I will 
not halt between two opinions. My face is set for the 
truth, and when I find, I mean to follo\\r it. 



CHAPTER XI 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

The Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, and the 
Protestant doctrine of the real absence of the body of 
Christ in the Lord's supper, are as much opposed to 
each other as any two precise opposites can possibly be 
imagined. There can be no medium between the two ■ — 
no possible middle ground. Christ is either present or 
absent. If present, the Catholic is right — if absent, then 
the Protestant is right. 

If the Catholic doctrine be true, it is a tender, sublime, 
and awful dogma — if false, a monstrous invention — a 
pure fabrication. If not in the Church originally, and not 
among the doctrines once delivered, it must have been 
introduced as a whole, and not in piecemeal. There 
could, from the very nature and reason of the thing, have 
been no middle doctrine — no shades of opinion, grad- 
ually preparing the minds of Christians for the recep- 
tion of this great perversion of the true faith. It was 
one bold leap from the well-understood and generally re- 
ceived doctrine of the real absence, to that opposite, so 
hard to flesh and blood, the Real Presence. 

The first portion of Scripture relied upon by the 
Catholic, is found in that wonderful chapter, the sixth 
of St. John. The first twenty-five verses are taken up 
in giving a history of the stupendous miracle of Christ 
in feeding the multitude, and His subsequent occupations 
until the next day. On the second day, the crowd again 

275 



276 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



came around Him, and His discourse to them commences 
at the 26th verse, and extends to the close of this long 
chapter. 

It was the practice with our Lord and his apostles to 
suit their discourses to the circumstances in which they 
were placed. The Jews had witnessed the miracle of 
feeding the five thousand ; and if our Lord ever intended 
to promise to give His body and blood to his followers, 
there is no time mentioned in the history of His labors 
more appropriate than the one mentioned in this chapter. 

In reference to the sense of this chapter, most Protes- 
tants insist that it relates to faith in Christ, though sev- 
eral distinguished writers, as Calixtus, Hackspan, and 
Groenenburg, out of England, and Dr. Jeremy Taylor 
and Dr. Sherlock of England, concede that the larger 
portion relates to the Eucharist, though they deny the 
literal sense. Catholic writers contend that about the 
48th verse the Saviour passes to another topic, by a very 
easy and natural transition. Dr. Wiseman has given very 
conclusive reasons to prove that the transition commences 
at the 48th verse. For myself, it seems to be true, that 
the transition not only takes place at that verse, but that 
both the main subjects of the discourse are clearly al- 
luded to in verse 27. 

The multitude who had been fed, declared, " this is of 
a truth the prophet that is to come into the world ; " and 
such was their admiration of our Lord, that they would 
have taken Him by force, and made Him a King. 
(14, 15.) They seem to have believed in him as one 
eminently competent to be a temporal sovereign; and 
that, as the kingdom of the second Moses, the Messiah, 
was to be a temporal kingdom, it would be one of the 
vocations of Christ to furnish them with food, and for 
this reason they sought Him, and not because they saw 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 277 



the miracles, (26.) The Jews had a tradition among 
them, that the Messiah, among other points of resem- 
blance to Moses, was, like him, to bring down manna 
from heaven. 

The existence of this tradition and its belief among 
the Jews, is shown from the facts historically stated in 
this chapter. They first followed Him into the desert, 

because they saw the miracles which he did on them 
that w^ere diseased." (2) Although they had witnessed 
these miracles on them that were diseased, they never 
once thought of making Christ a King, until after the 
miracles of the loaves and fishes. But upon witnessing 
this peculiar miracle, they seem at once to have con- 
sidered Him as sent of God as a temporal Sovereign, a 
part of whose vocation would be to supply His people 
with food, as God had done, through the ministry of 
Moses, in the wilderness. All the circumstances taken 
in connection with the miracle they saw, were doubtless 
the reasons that induced them to seek to make him a 
King, and to take shipping and to follow him to Cap- 
harnaum, and not the expectation of obtaining another 
meal, as some Protestant writers have supposed. Such a 
motive would seem wholly inadequate to produce such 
a result ; and such a position is inconsistent with the fact, 
that they so ardently desired to make Him a King. 

This tradition is the reason why the Jews referred to 
the manna in the 31st verse. They ask Christ for a proof 
of His commission, and then, without the slightest seem- 
ing reason, refer to the manna in the desert. What con- 
nection this matter could have with the question they 
asked could not well be seen without a knowledge of the 
existence of this tradition. 

The Jews imder the influence of this opinion, and, no 
doubt, still desiring to make Christ a King, that they 



278 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



might be fed by His power and bounty, pursued Him the 
next day. Adapting His discourse to the state of their 
opinions, (as St. Peter did, when he told them to repent 
and be baptized, without mentioning faith, because they 
already believed,) it seemed that our Lord had two main 
points to propound: i. That He was the Son of God in 
whom they must believe. 2. That it was no part of His 
mission to give them perishable food but the imperishable 
food of his own body and blood. Both these points are 
stated in one verse and in one sentence. (27.) 

It was natural and appropriate that our Lord should 
first inform the Jews that He understood their views and 
motives, and that these were erroneous, before propound- 
ing His own doctrines. After telling them that they 
sought him, not because they had witnessed the miracles, 
but because they had eaten of the loaves and fishes, He 
very naturally, at this place, warns them not to labor 
for that meat which they so much regarded, but for that 
imperishable meat that He would give them; and then 
confirms His power to fulfill His promise with that em- 
phatic expression, " for him hath God the Father sealed." 

The first point to be discussed (though secondly 
stated,) was the proposition that He was the Son of God, 
and commissioned by Him; and that, as such, they were 
to believe in him. When He gave them sufficient evi- 
dence of His true character, they were bound by the 
plainest principles of right reason to believe Him upon 
His authority alone, and to receive every doctrine pro- 
pounded by him, however hard that saying might be. 
The only proper inquiry the Jews could make was that 
which they did make in verse 30. That being answered 
and proved by what they had seen and heard before and 
at that time, they were bound to believe, without doubt, 
all that he might require them to believe. If He was the 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



279 



Christ, then He was legitimately entitled to unlimited 
confidence. And when He performed the miracles before 
their eyes, He conclusively established His character and 
veracity, and, therefore. His account of Himself they 
must receive as infallibly true. 

Our Lord, in verse 27, does not define what he meant 
by meat that should endure to eternal life, except simply 
to state its quality in contrast with perishable food. He 
does not state it in terms calculated to arouse prejudice 
in the beginning of His discourse, and thus close the ears 
of his hearers against His doctrines. He does not then 
say in what it shall consist. He merely states the heads 
of His discourse in such a way as to create no prejudice, 
and yet show what two main points would come under 
discussion. The reader will observe that in verse 27, our 
Lord promised that He will give this imperishable meat, 
and that in verses 51 and 55, He says He will give His 
flesh, and that His flesh is meat indeed. In both cases 
He speaks of a future gift, which He Himself will give ; 
showing that the same thing is alluded to in all these 
verses. 

It must be conceded that the doctrine of the Real 
Presence is a hard and revolting doctrine to flesh and 
blood, and especially so to the Jews, as we shall see. It 
was then proper in itself that Christ should select an 
occasion when some miracle, or other great event, would 
form the proper introduction to this unpleasant topic. 
And not only so, but an occasion when the Jews were 
well-disposed towards him. On this occasion all these 
circumstances concurred. The Jews, in multitudes, had 
fed upon the miraculous food created by the Son of Man 
— they had hailed Him the day before as a Prophet — 
in' their enthusiasm they had sought to make Him a King, 
by force ; and they followed Him beyond sea, and sought 



28o THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



Him until they found Him, and the respectful manner 
in which they addressed Him, shows the state of their 
feelings towards Him. It is true, they entertained erron- 
eous views and opinions in reference to the object of their 
admiration, but that was the very time to correct these 
errors of opinion. In justice to them, it was the oppor- 
tune moment. If they could not hear that hard saying 
at this time, they never could hear it. No wonder, then, 
that those disciples who could not hear that doctrine on 
this occasion, " walked no more " with their deserted 
Lord. 

As I take it our Lord proceeds, from the 29th to the 
47th verses inclusive, to teach the great doctrine, that He 
is the Son of the Father, and the general necessity of 
faith in him, as such. In answer to the allusion made by 
the Jews to the manna, and after having previously told 
them, in verse 29, that the work of God was to believe on 
Him whom he hath sent. He tells them that His Father 
giveth them the true bread from Heaven, and then pro- 
ceeds to define the meaning in which He there used the 
word bread, by saying, " For the bread of God is He 
which Cometh down from heaven." I am the bread of 
Life." The Jews understood Him correctly, for they did 
not inquire " how can this man be bread? " but they did 
say, " How is it, then, that he saith, I come down from 
heaven?" (42.) They disbelieved the assumed fact that 
He came down from heaven, but they did not misunder- 
stand the sense of His words. 

It will be seen that there are several marked differences 
in the language of that part of Our Lord's discourse, 
from the 29th to the 47th verses inclusive, and that from 
verses 48 to 58 inclusive ; and these peculiarities are such 
as to show a change of topic. 

Our Saviour, after having explicitly defined the word 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



281 



bread as figurative of Himself, proceeds to speak exclu- 
sively of faith in the next fourteen verses ; and it is very 
remarkable that in this part of His discourse, he care- 
fully avoids the use of the phrase eating Him, and does 
not even use the expression to eat the bread of life. This 
care in avoiding any reference to eating Him, shows 
how clearty our Lord kept within the limits of the first 
topic. From the moment that He begins to use literal 
terms. He proceeds to speak of His doctrine under the 
phrases " cometh to me," " believeth in me," (which mean 
the same thing,) until verse 47, which is a complete sum- 
ming up of that part of His discourse. 

But His language after this is very different; for He 
not only speaks of eating this bread, but of eating His 
flesh. It was not unusual with our Lord to repeat the 
same thing a number of times in succession, and after 
each repetition, to introduce new matter. In the tenth 
chapter of St. John's Gospel, He repeats the phrase, " I 
am the door." So, in the fifteenth chapter, the expres- 
sion, " I am the true vine/' and then says His Father 
is the husbandman. And again, " I am the vine," and 
then proceeds to say, You are the branches." So, in 
the 23rd chapter of Matthew, He repeats that wither- 
ing phrase, " Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites," seven or eight times. In the chapter under 
consideration, He says, "I am the bread of Hfe," (35.) 
and then proceeds to speak of faith in Him as the Son 
of God. Having summed up in verse 47, He says 
again, "I am the bread of life," (48.) He then pro- 
ceeds to state the want of a living principle in manna, 
(49.), and then puts in strong contrast with it the bread 
of Hfe, (50.) And He repeats again (51.), in language 
more emphatic, " I am the living bread," and proceeds to 
introduce new matter in these words : " And the bread 
20 



282 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the 
life of the world." 

Our Lord, previous to verse 51, had asserted that 
He was the bread of Life — that He came down from 
Heaven — that a man may eat of that bread and not 
die; and all these propositions are repeated in verse 51, 
preparatory to the definition He was about to give of 
the new sense in which He used the word bread, as 
figurative of His real flesh. In verse 32, He speaks 
of the quality of the bread, calling it the " true bread," 
and then defines what it is by saying : For the bread 
of God is He which cometh down from Heaven." So 
here he speaks of the quality of the bread (50 and 51.), 
and then defines what it is in language of very similar 
form. 

" For the bread of God is he " And the bread that I will 
which cometh down from give is my flesh." 
heaven." 

Now the word bread, in both these extracts, is used 
in a figurative sense, but not in the same figurative 
sense. There are two separate and distinct definitions 
given — the first, of Christ as a Lawgiver or teacher, 
and the second, of His real flesh. These two definitions 
would be idle, if they meant the same thing. And if 
these definitions give us different meanings, it is clear 
that when the second one was given, there was a change 
of topic. 

It will also be observed, that in the first definition, 
the pronoun he," the nominative after the verb " to be," 
is not a figurative, but a Hteral expression ; so, the nomi- 
native " flesh," in the second, is not figurative but literal. 
Our Lord could not be supposed to use the same figura- 
tive word to represent Himself literally in one portion 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 283 



of His discourse, and in another part of the same dis- 
course, to represent His flesh figuratively — thus not 
only using the same word under similarly constructed 
sentences in a different sense, but using a figurative ex- 
pression to represent a figurative substance. It would 
seem perfectly clear, that the word flesh was used by our 
Lord literally. 

If a speaker use words in any known sense, he is not 
bound to define the sense in which he uses them, un- 
less there be some special circumstances requiring it. If, 
on the contrary, he use known terms in unknown senses, 
he is compelled, by every consideration of justice to 
himself and his hearers, to define the new sense in which 
he uses the same. Our Lord seems to have acted upon 
this just rule. Although it was common among the 
Jews to use the words bread or food for wisdom or 
doctrines, it was not so common to use these words for a 
lawgiver or a teacher of doctrines. Our Saviour was, 
therefore, careful to show the exact sense in which He 
used the word, in the two different figurative senses 
stated. 

The same matter further considered. 

It will also be observed that in the first portion of 
our Lord's discourse, while speaking of Himself under 
the image of bread, he represents this as given by the 
Father; but after verse 47, He speaks of the food now 
described, as being given by Himself. This marked dif- 
ference in the giver, shows a difference in the gift. 
There could be no ground for this difference, if faith 
only is intended; but if there be a transition to a real 
eating, the whole is clear. While we contemplate Christ 
as the object of our faith, and as the Sent of God to re- 
deem the world, he is justly said to be given by His 



284 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



Father. " God so loved the world," etc. But when we 
view Him as giving us His own flesh to eat^ it is more 
correctly said to be by His own love for us. 

There is another difference between the language of 
the' two portions of our Lord's discourse, still more 
marked and explicit. 

That the same words, by usage, may have both a 
literal and figurative meaning, must be conceded. That 
the meaning of a speaker must be determined by the 
usage existing at the time, and not by that existing 
afterwards, must also be clear. That it is the duty of 
every honest speaker, who uses words or phrases having 
a known signification, in a new and unknown sense, to 
define this new sense, must also be conceded. If, there- 
fore, the phrase, to " eat the flesh " of any one, had any 
fixed figurative as well as literal meaning, at the time 
it was used by Christ, then the Jews and disciples could 
only understand this expression in one or the other of 
those established meanings. They could have no right 
to understand them in a new or unknown sense, unless 
Christ had given an express definition, as He did of the 
word bread, or unless the context was so clear as to 
leave no doubt. What right had they to put an un- 
known sense upon a known phrase, with fixed mean- 
ings? If hearers could put such a construction upon 
the language of a speaker, there would be no bounds to 
this licentious privilege. Once beyond the control of 
the only rules governing the sense of words and phrases, 
they are at sea without chart or compass. 

If the phrase, to eat the flesh of anyone, had, besides 
its literal, an established metaphorical sense, then how 
must the Jews have understood it? If, on the contrary, 
it had more than one metaphorical meaning, how must 
they have understood it? In the first case, they could 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 285 



only understand it either in its literal sense, or in the 
only metaphorical sense known to the language. In 
the second, they could only understand it in its literal 
sense, or in one of its metaphorical senses. 

Now what was the metaphorical meaning of this ex- 
pression? In all cases when used metaphorically, it 
meant to do a person some grievous injury, principally 
by slander or false accusation. The following are ex- 
amples of its figurative meaning in Scripture: 

" While the wicked^ draw near against me to eat up 
my flesh." (Ps. xxvii, 2.) "Why do you persecute 
me, and are not satisfied with (eating) my flesh?" 
(Job xix, 22.) "Who also eat the flesh of my people." 
(Micheas iii, 3.) "The fool foldeth his arms together 
and eateth his own flesh." (Ecc. iv, 5.) I am not 
aware of any other passages in the Old Testament where 
this expression is used in a figurative sense. In all 
the above cases, the idea of inflicting upon the person 
a grievous injury is clearly conveyed. 

The following examples are found in the New Testa- 
ment: "Shall eat your flesh as it were fire." (St. 
James v, iii.) " But if you bite and devour one 
another." (Gal. v, 15.) 

Regarding the meaning of this phrase among the 
Arabs, and in the language which our Lord spoke, Dr. 
Wiseman, in his lectures on the Eucharist, p. 73-81, 
has shown conclusively, that it has only the same figura- 
tive meaning. 

The differences between the language of the two por- 
tions of our Lord's discourse, are so marked and clear 
that we are forced to concede, not only a change of topic, 
but we are forced to take the expression, " eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man," in its literal sense, or we must take 
it in the metaphorical sense of calumniating our Lord. 



286 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



The reason upon which this usage among so many- 
nations is founded, would seem to be plain. The 
metaphorical sense of a term always comes after the 
literal; and, for that reason, will participate of its char- 
acter. If the literal sense convey a harsh meaning, the 
figurative will do the same. If one knows the literal 
meaning of a term, he can almost at once fix upon its 
metaphorical sense. To literally eat the flesh of a 
person, is naturally a revolting idea. Therefore, when 
such an expression is used metaphorically, it conveys the 
same harsh meaning. For this reason, we find no ex- 
amples, even among classical writers, where a person 
is figuratively said to eat the flesh of another, except 
those which convey the harsh idea of the literal sense. 
(See E)r. Wiseman's Lee, p. 85.) 

If we take the expression, to eat the flesh of Christ, 
in the only figurative sense known at the time, and say 
that such was His meaning, His words reduced to literal 
language would stand about thus : " Except ye do some 
grievous injury to the Son of Man, ye have no life in 
you." This interpretation must at once be rejected; 
and this being true, we are forced to take the expression 
in its literal sense, or in some new and unknown, and 
undefined figurative sense. And what right have we to 
do the latter? 

But there is another consideration of very great im- 
portance. Our Lord certainly intended to be under- 
stood, otherwise he would have been making an idle 
display of words. He was putting forth an important 
doctrine, which He could not mitigate or soften, how- 
ever repugnant to human pride or prejudice. He could 
not but state the truth; and whether the truth was ac- 
cepted or not. His practice was always to state it. " If 
I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like you, a 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



287 



liar." (John viii, 55.) While, therefore, our Lord 
would never soften His doctrines, he would 
hardly resort to repulsive figures of speech to in- 
culcate pleasing doctrines. Faith in the death of Christ 
is one of the most cheering doctrines of Christianity; 
and to inculcate this doctrine would our Lord say, " Ex- 
cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His 
blood, ye have no life in you," thus resorting to a re- 
volting figure of speech without the slightest necessity? 

There are certainly some mutual rights existing be- 
tween a speaker and his hearers. The object of every 
just speaker is to elucidate, not to confuse his subject — 
to enlighten, not to insult his audience. He will nec- 
essarily be led by this consideration, to adapt his mode 
of instruction to the capacity and feelings of his hear- 
ers. This was the uniform practice of St. Paul, who 
was all things to all men ; " and of St. Peter when he 
said, I know, brethren, that you did it through ignor- 
ance, as did also your rulers." This was also the course 
of our Lord Himself. 

The question then arises, were the ideas of eating 
human flesh and drinking blood revolting to the Jews? 
If they were so, then we cannot suppose our Saviour 
to resort to them as images of cheering doctrines; nor 
can we suppose He used these expressions at all, unless 
the doctrine He inculcated necessarily compelled Him 
to use them for the purpose of propounding the exact 
truth itself. If the literal sense given by the Jews was 
correct, then the use of these expressions was clearly 
necessary. And to show that these expressions were re- 
volting to the Jews, I need only to refer to the following 
texts : — 

Levit. iii, 17; vii, 26; Gen. ix, 4; Deut. xii, 16; xv, 23; 
Levit. xvii, 10; i Kings xiv; Ez. xxxiii, 25; Judith xi, 



288 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



10-12; Wisdom xi, 7; Is. xlix, 26; Jer. xix, 8^ 9; Acts 
XV, 29. 

It was doubtless this revolting idea which the Jews 
had of eating human flesh and drinking blood, that in- 
duced many of the disciples to " walk no more " with 
our Lord, and to disbelieve the doctrine He taught. 
They considered it not only impossible, but contrary 
to the law of Moses. The law of Moses having been 
given by God, and they not understanding its temporary 
character, and looking upon the literal doctrine of our 
Lord as conflicting with the law of Moses, they at once 
rejected it. 

It may be said that our Lord did, on other occasions, 
clothe His ideas in images almost, if not quite, as offensive 
to his hearers. For example, he represents the necessity 
of patient suffering under the harsh image of carrying 
the cross. But this case is not in point for two reasons : 
I. The death of the cross, though disgraceful, was often 
inflicted upon the innocent ; while eating flesh and drink- 
ing blood was wicked in itself ; and to select such an ex- 
ample to inculcate a doctrine, was very different from 
referring to an example simply disgraceful. 2. The 
doctrine of mortification is necessarily harsh in itself, 
requiring a harsh figure to represent it truly. The 
figure selected by our Lord was fit and appropriate, and 
had the advantage of His own example. But the figure 
of eating flesh and drinking blood to illustrate a pleasing 
doctrine has no parallel anywhere in Scripture. 

How did the hearers of Our Lord understand Himf 

The preceding remarks relate to the sense in which 
the hearers of our Lord must have understood Him, ac- 
cording to the then existing usage. It is now proper 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 289 



to inquire in what sense they did, in fact, understand 
Him. 

The construction put upon the language of a speaker 
by those who hear him is at least prima facie evidence 
of his true meaning. This presumption becomes almost 
conclusive, when the speaker is aware of the construction 
placed upon his language, and does not object to it; and 
it becomes entirely conclusive, when the speaker by his 
acts or words, confirms the interpretation of his hearers. 

It is true, that in regard to a point of no importance, 
a speaker may well let his audience remain in error, as 
that error would, in no material respect, influence their 
determination. But if the error be material, it is the 
clear duty of the speaker to explain except in special cases, 
as where a future event will give the hearers the true 
interpretation. In the case under consideration, the er- 
ror was most material. 

That the hearers of Christ understood Him in the 
literal sense, is scarcely denied by any writer. When 
our Lord said, " And the bread that I will give is my 
flesh," the Jews strove among themselves saying. How 
can this man give us His flesh to eat ? " That they un- 
derstood Him in the literal sense is apparent from these 
considerations : 

" First. That the Jews considered the expression just 
used as totally different from those in the first portion 
of the discourse. For if they had understood by eating 
His flesh, the same as having him, the bread of life — 
this having been already explained by himself of be- 
lieving on him — they could not ask in what manner 
this manducation was to take place. 

" Secondly. We must conclude that the Jews under- 
stood the transition to be the doctrine, literally ex- 
pressed, of feeding upon Christ; for their objection sup- 



290 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



poses Him to be teaching a doctrine impossible to be 
practiced; ' How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' 
Now no other but the literal signification could possibly 
give rise to this objection/' (Wiseman's Lee, 102.) 

Thirdly. If nothing new was asserted by Christ, (as 
they understood him,) then there could have been no 
apparent cause for the increased excitement. Nothing 
but understanding our Lord in the hteral sense can be 
consistent with the intense excitement that followed our 
Lord's declaration. 

Did they understand Him correctly? 

To arrive at a true answer to this question, in ad- 
dition to that which has already been advanced, we must 
inquire whether Christ, by word or act, confirmed the 
interpretation put upon His words by those who heard 
Him. To understand the meaning of His conduct on this 
occasion, we must examine it on other occasions, and 
ascertain what was His usual mode of action under 
similar circumstances. 

I. When He used words in a figurative sense, and 
His hearers understood Him literally, and made objec- 
tions, what was His usual course? 

When Christ said to Nicodemus, that " unless a man 
be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of 
God," he understood Him literally, and our Lord at 
once corrected the error. So, when He said to His dis- 
ciples, " Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees," they understood Him literally, and He at 
once explained His true meaning. So, when He said, 
" I have food to eat that ye know not of," and they 
misunderstood Him, He corrected the error. So, when 
He said, " Lazarus our friend sleepeth," they under- 
stood Him in the literal sense, and He at once explain^i 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



In this case the explanation was not so important, as 
no doctrine was propounded. So, when He said, 
" Whither I go you cannot come/' the Jews understood 
Him in a gross material sense, and asked, " Will he kill 
himself ? " Our Lord at once removed this absurd con- 
struction by saying, " You are from beneath, I am from 
above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." 
(John viii, 21.) When He said, It is easier for a 
camel," etc.. His disciples understood Him that a rich 
man could not be saved, and he at once corrected 
their mistake. (Matt, xix, 24.) When He spoke to 
the Jews of spiritual slavery, they understood Him 
literally, and He at once corrected their misconstruction. 
(John viii, 32.) When our Lord told the Jews that if 
they were the children of Abraham they would do the 
works of Abraham, and they understood Him to mean 
literally that they were not Abraham's descendants, He 
explains by saying, " You are of your father, the devil, 
and the desires of your father ye will do ; " showing that 
He meant- their spiritual, not natural descent. (Id. 39.) 
And when His disciples said one to another, ^' What is 
this that He saith, a little while? We know not what 
he speaketh ; " our Lord, in succeeding verses, explains 
His meaning until He was properly understood. (John 
xvi, 17, 18.) 

From these examples it appears that our Lord acted 
upon the just and generous rule which requires every 
speaker to explain his meaning when misunderstood ; 
and that He was so much in this habit, that He not only 
explained to His disciples, but even to His most per- 
verse and obstinate enemies. 

2. When, on the contrary, He used words in their 
literal sense, and his hearers understood Him correctly, 
and made objections, what was then His usual course? 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



The following examples will form an answer to this 
question : 

When our Lord said to the sick of the palsy, Son, be 
of good heart, thy sins are forgiven thee," His hearers 
understood him correctly, and made objections, and our 
Saviour stood to His words. (Matt, ix, 2.) So, when 
He said to the Jews " Abraham your father rejoiced 
that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad." 
Those who heard Him understood Him literally as say- 
ing that He was coeval with Abraham, and our Lord 
at once stood to his position, notwithstanding that He 
foresaw that personal violence would be the result of 
His course. (John viii, 56.) This eighth chapter 
afifords us marked examples of our Lord's method of 
acting in both cases. 

In the very chapter under consideration we have an 
instance. Christ having asserted that He came down 
from Heaven, and His hearers understanding Him 
literally, and making objections. He stands to His posi- 
tion, and repeats the same assertion in other parts of the 
chapter. (50, 51, 59-) 

From these numerous examples we are forced to adopt 
these two rules: i. When His hearers misunderstood 
Him, and objected, He explained His true meaning. 
2. When they understood Him correctly and objected, 
He repeated His proposition. 

And this course was in perfect accordance with rea- 
son, justice, and truth. Where a speaker uses words 
susceptible of different meanings, and he is aware, as 
our Lord was, of the construction placed upon his words, 
and he then repeats them without explanation, he adopts, 
expressly, the construction of his hearers, and makes it 
his own by his own most explicit act, and the construc- 
tion becomes conclusive. We can imagine a case where 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



a human speaker, under the influence of fear, or some 
other extraordinary motive, might thus act, and not be 
concluded by his conduct ; but we are at a loss to imagine 
a case where a Divine Lawgiver could thus act, with- 
out fixing the meaning put upon his words, by those 
who heard him. 

After our Lord had explicitly stated that the bread 
he would give was His flesh, and the Jews had asked 
the question, " How can this man give us his flesh to 
eat?" our Lord makes no explanation, but repeats the 
proposition in terms still more emphatic, reaffirming the 
truth of the proposition he had just before advanced. 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life 
in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last 
day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is 
drink indeed." 

The case under consideration then falls plainly under 
the latter rule. His words being correctly understood, 
in their literal sense, and His proposition itself being 
disputed, our Saviour makes no explanation, but stands 
to his words, and repeats them in six different forms, 
still more emphatic than before. 

Exceptions to the rules deduced from our Lord's conduct. 

Let us now examine certain alleged exceptions to 
the two rules we have deduced from our Lord's con- 
duct. If we find exceptions to either rule, let us care- 
fully examine and see how far, and how far only, 
such exception will limit the application of the rule. 
In other words, let us see whether the exceptions, if 
any such exist, establish or destroy the rule, or sim- 
ply limit it. 



294 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



There are only two cases found in the history of our 
Lord's conduct, reUed upon as conflicting with these 
rules. 

The first case is that found in the fourth chapter of 
St. John, in our Lord's conference with the Samaritan 
woman. This case is only an apparent exception to the 
first rule. I say apparent only, for, as I take it, the 
woman not only should have understood Him correctly, 
but did so understand Him; and that the whole cir- 
cumstances and language, taken and considered to- 
gether, very clearly show it; and that so far from con- 
stituting an exception to the first rule, it is a case in 
support of it. 

Our Saviour in the tenth verse, in answer to her 
question as to why He, being a Jew, would ask of her to 
drink, replies : " If thou didst know the gift of God, 
and who is he that saith to thee, give me to drink, thou 
perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have 
given thee living water." She evidently understood Him 
in a literal sense, and shows this by her answer. The 
language of Christ was simply living water; " a phrase 
that might well be taken literally. Our Saviour, in the 
13th and 14th verses, gives her an explanatory answer, 
defining the qualities of the water He would give, and 
concluded by saying, But the water that I will give 
him, shall become in him a fountain of water, spring- 
ing up into life everlasting.'' 

This language is plainly metaphorical, and is so plainly 
so, that no one reader, to my knowledge, ever under- 
stood it otherwise. But the Samaritan woman still un- 
derstood him, literally, for the reason, that at this part 
of our Saviour's discourse, she did not yet know who 
it was that spoke to her. A knowledge of His character 
would at once give her the key to the true meaning. 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



295 



Christ knew that she had correct conceptions of the 
character of His mission. She tells him, in the 25th 
verse, that she knew that the Messiah cometh, and when 
he is come " he will " (not create a world, or wells, or 
streams of water, but) " tell us all things ; " or, in other 
words, teach us all truth. Our Saviour, therefore, in- 
stead of giving her any further verbal explanations, 
breaks off abruptly, and says, " Go call thy husband, 
and come hither." This was evidently done to give Him 
the opportunity to show her that He possessed divine 
power; and in the end, to tell her plainly, He was the 
Christ. The effect of this information upon her mind 
is shown by the 28th and 29th verses. She left her 
water-pot, (a circumstance showing her haste and her 
excitement,) and went into the City and said unto the 
men there, " Come, and see a man who has told me all 
things vv^hatsoever I have done. Is not he the Christ ? " 
This, taken in connection with the language of the men 
to her in the 42nd verse, shows plainly that she believed 
He was the Christ, and that she understood Him. 

But our Saviour had other objects in view, as well 
as the instruction of a single person; and those objects 
were of paramount importance. " Upon perusing this 
interesting chapter," says Dr. Wiseman, " it has often 
struck me as one of the most beautiful instances on 
record of His (our Saviour's) amiable ingenuity in do- 
ing good. He desired to make an opening for his re- 
Hgion among the Samaritans. But had He presented 
Himself among them uncalled, had He commenced His 
preaching of His own accord, he could have only ex- 
pected to be rejected, to be ill-treated as a Jew, and 
punished as a religious innovator. He wishes, there- 
fore, to be invited by the Samaritans themselves, and he 
selects the most favorable moment and means for effect- 



296 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



ing his purpose. He dismisses all His disciples to the 
city of Sichem, and seats Himself at the well, where he 
was sure to find some of the inhabitants, and where the 
rules of hospitality in the East would give him a right 
to enter into conversation. A female accordingly comes, 
and he uses this right by asking her for water." 

The conversation which follows was all adapted to 
excite her curiosity ; and the replies of our Lord, and the 
ingenious manner in which He introduced the subjects, 
all go to show the great leading object he had in view. 
After leading her from one topic to another, and exciting 
her curiosity to its highest pitch, and after showing that 
He knew her most intimate domestic relations, (a mat- 
ter best calculated to excite the attention of a woman in 
her condition,) He tells her plainly, that He is the Christ. 
The woman at once goes into the city, as Jesus designed, 
and tells the men of the wonderful person she had met, 
and invites them, in the most exciting and urgent man- 
ner, to come and see Him, giving them the most extra- 
ordinary reasons for the request she made. Our Saviour 
accordingly did not go into the City, until they came to 
Him and invited Him in, and desired Him to tarry with 
them. After He was invited He remained with them 
two days, making many proselytes. 

An examination of the whole narrative, and a con- 
sideration of the relation the Samaritans bore to the 
Jews and their religion, must convince any one that the 
principal object Christ had in view, in His conference 
with this woman, was, at first, more to excite than to 
gratify curiosity. For this reason, (although He gives 
her an explanation of His meaning in verses 13 and 14, 
sufficiently clear to her when she was afterwards in- 
formed of His true character,) He so manages His dis- 
course as to accomplish the great end had in view by 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



him. If she had not finally understood Him to 
speak of spiritual waters, instead of natural, she would 
naturally have said, after " who has told me all things 
whatsoever I have done," and has promised to give us 
a fountain of water, more excellent than the well of 
Jacob. 

But putting the most extreme construction upon this 
incident, and thence concluding that the Samaritan 
woman never did understand our Saviour otherwise than 
in the Hteral sense, still the case is most clearly distin- 
guishable from the one under consideration, in these 
most important particulars: 

1. He was not speaking of a doctrine that must be 
believed upon pain of eternal death. 

2. The woman still believed in Him, and was not lost 
for want of an explanation. 

3. She was not His disciple, who already believed on 
Him, and was still permitted to go away forever, simply 
for want of an explanation of one hard saying. 

4. Christ did not tell her, when she simply misunder- 
stood, that she did not believe. 

The second case relied upon is found in the second 
chapter of St. John's Gospel, 

When our Lord had driven out the money changers 
from the temple, and the Jews had asked for a sign of 
His authority. He answered: 

" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it 
up. The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this 
temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three 
days ? But He spake of the temple of His body, When, 
therefore. He was risen again from the dead, his dis- 
ciples remembered that He had said this, and they be- 
lieved the Scriptures and the word that Jesus had 
said." 

2i 



298 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



Our Lord, in this case, had used language susceptible 
of two meanings, and the Jews took the word temple in 
the wrong sense, and He suffered them to remain in 
their erroneous construction, without any explanation. 

That the Jews put the most natural construction upon 
His words, would appear from these reflections. He 
had driven out the money changers from the temple, 
and told them not to make the house of His Father a 
house of traffic. So far He spoke of the temple. The 
Jews asked for a sign of His authority for driving out 
those men from the temple, and our Lord, without ex- 
planation, answered : " Destroy this temple," etc. The 
only temple that had been spoken of was the Jewish 
temple, and the Jews inquired for His authority in what 
He did in that temple, and our Lord said, in reply, this 
temple. Suppose we strike out verses 21 and 22, which 
contain the special explanation, (the advantages of which 
the Jews had not at that time,) and exclude from our 
consideration the resurrection of Christ — in other 
words, place ourselves precisely in the same position of 
the Jews, and what construction would we place upon 
the language of our Lord? Surely, the construction 
they did. 

That this case constitutes an exception to the first 
rule, must be conceded. Our Lord, though misunder- 
stood, gave no explanation. It is true^ He did not re- 
peat His statement, thereby making their construction 
His own, but simply left them without explanation. This 
is not, therefore, an exception to the second rule. 

In this case our Lord was only making a prediction, 
and not putting forth a doctrine, which He required 
then to be believed; and this distinction is most ma- 
terial. The only object our Lord had in making this 
prediction was to constitute it, when fulfilled, evidence 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



of His Divinity. This is shown by verse 22. To ac- 
compHsh all he intended, He had simply to make the 
prediction. The act of making it did not constitute any 
proof, but it was both the making and fulfilment, taken 
together, that did. His words showed two things; i. 
That a miraculous event was foretold. 2. That it could 
be known when it happened. 

Now was there any necessity for any explanation? 
Christ could not be expected to do an idle thing. Sup- 
pose He had explained His true meaning; would have 
that removed the unbelief of the Jews? It was just as 
great a miracle to raise His own body from the grave, as 
to raise the temple. The event fulfilling the prophecy 
would make all clear. Our Lord did not wish to inter- 
fere with the personal free agency of the Jews, and it 
was not His purpose to make His prophecy plain. The 
event, predicted, in fact, constituted a part of the pre- 
diction itself, for the purpose of explanation. It is so 
in reference to prophecies generally. They are purposely 
left obscure, for the best of reasons, until their fulfil- 
ment makes them clear. 

This being a conceded exception to the first rule, how 
far does it affect that rule? Does it not establish and 
sustain it, rather than destroy it? It being a special 
exception, for special reasons, and the fact of its being an 
exception being expressly marked, does, indeed, 
strengthen the rule ; and why ? Because the same apostle 
who records the words and conduct of our Lord in 
this special case, also records His words and conduct 
in the sixth chapter ; and in reference to this ' special 
case, he puts in himself an express explanation of our 
Lord's meaning, and does not do so in the other. Why 
does he do this in one case, and not in the other? The 
reason is palpable. Our Lord was misunderstood in 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



the one case, and as it was not proper for Him then to 
give the explanation, St. John gives it afterwards. But 
as to eating His flesh, He was correctly understood ; and 
therefore St. John purposely fails to give any explana- 
tion. When a writer takes pains to point out certain 
exceptions expressly, he, by this very act, negatives all 
idea of other exceptions, not so stated. So it is with 
respect to a statute. If the lawmaker himself assumes 
to state exceptions to his own general rule, he must be 
presumed to intend to finish his work, and not leave it 
unfinished, like a man who attempts to build a house, 
and fails. St. John was in the habit of making these 
explanations in cases of obscurity; and, had our Lord 
failed to make an explanation when misunderstood as to 
eating His flesh, the apostle would no doubt have given 
it. Two explanations occur in this very chapter, verses 
6 and 71. Also one in the last chapter. We are no- 
where told that the Jews misunderstood Christ. No 
subsequent event explains His meaning. On the con- 
trary, as we shall see, subsequent events confirm the 
construction of the Jews. 

Did Our Lord confirm the construction put upon His 
words by the Jews? 

I have endeavored to show that the case under con- 
sideration comes under the second rule ; namely, that our 
Lord was correctly understood, and His proposition itself 
being disputed. He repeated it again with increased em- 
phasis. Is there a single instance to be found, where 
His hearers misunderstood Him, and, in reply to them, 
He repeated His words without explanation? Can any 
such a case be shown^ either in the conduct of Christ 
or in that of any other just speaker? 

The Jews had made the objection that Christ could 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



not literally give them His flesh to eat; and in REPLY 
TO THIS OBJECTION, " Jesus said unto them, Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the 
Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in 
you,'* etc. All that Christ said in verses 53 to 58 in- 
clusive, was said in the form of a reply to the objection 
of the Jews. The language of the reply of our Lord is 
most emphatic. If, therefore, the Jews simply mis- 
understood Him, what possible purpose could He have 
had in making such a reply? Or was his reply without 
a purpose, and simply idle? Was it meaningless? Can 
we impute such a weakness to Christ, the Son of God? 
We dare not do that. Then what could He mean by 
this most emphatic reassertion of His proposition itself, 
when that proposition had not been, in fact, disputed 
by the Jews, in making their objection? A proposition 
cannot be believed, unless it is first understood; nor 
can it be disbelieved, unless first understood. We can 
believe or disbelieve a proposition without comprehending 
it, but we can do neither, without understanding the 
proposition. If the Jews simply misunderstood Christ, 
their objection was not aimed at the real proposition 
itself, but at an imaginary proposition, never made. 
Therefore, for our Lord to repeat to them the same 
proposition, in substantially the same language, and 
without explanation, would have been about as idle and 
senseless an act as can well be imagined. What pos- 
sible end could the repetition, without explanation, of 
a misunderstood proposition, accomplish? Would such 
a repetition secure the reception of the real proposition? 
On the contrary, would not the repetition, without ex- 
planation, of a misunderstood proposition, but defeat 
the very purpose the speaker had in view, by expressly 
confirming His hearers in their mistake? When Christ 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



put forth His proposition, did He wish to be under- 
stood? and did He wish His proposition to be believed? 
If He did not, for what purpose did He put it forth? 
He was not simply making a prediction. He was pro- 
pounding a doctrine. Did He propound this doctrine 
without a purpose? If He propounded a doctrine, it 
must have been true ; and if true, He must have intended 
it to be believed ; and if so. He must have intended then 
to be understood. 

If we say the metaphorical sense is the true one, then 
we make our Lord's conduct, on this occasion, the 
strangest anomaly, at war with His own uniform prac- 
tice upon all similar occasions, and that of every sin- 
cere speaker. And we do this without any authority or 
example to sustain us. In all my reading, observation, 
and experience, I have never met with an instance where 
a speaker, having put forth a proposition which He 
wished to be understood, and, where his proposition 
was misunderstood by his hearers, simply repeated it in 
language still more emphatic, but without explanation. 

For the reasons given, this conclusion seems to fol- 
low, that the acts and language, of our Lord are wholly 
irreconcilable with the metaphorical sense, and cannot be 
explained, except upon the hypothesis that the Jews did 
understand Him correctly in the literal sense. 

Did His disciples understand Him in the literal sense f 

The verses from 59 to 65 inclusive, are taken up mainly 
in relating what the murmuring disciples said, and in 
our Lord's reply to them. The words, " these things," 
in verse 59, refer to the entire discourse ; while the words 
" this " and " it," in verses 60 and 61, refer to only one 
thing; namely, that hard saying. What was that hard 
saying? It could be nothing but the statement of our 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



Lord that He would give them His flesh to eat. In other 
words the disciples murmured at the same thing that 
caused the Jews to strive among themselves and ask: 
" How can this man give us His flesh to eat ? " 

The audience of Christ, on this occasion, consisted of 
the admiring multitude who had followed Him into the 
wilderness, among whom He had many disciples, " who 
beheved on His name/' (John ii, 23; iii, 22.) There 
were no proud Pharisees or cunning Sadducees there. 
They (the multitude) accounted Him as a prophet. (14.) 
We are told that " the people took shipping and came 
to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus." (24.) From verse 
25 to 35 inclusive, the historian uses the pronoun " they " 
to designate the persons who had asked Christ the ques- 
tions, and to whom He gave the answers recorded. The 
inquiries made were such, up to this point, that the 
whole multitude could join in asking, as the questions 
themselves were not improper. But in verses 41 and 42, 
we are told that the Jews murmured, and asked the ques- 
tion, " How then saith He I came down from heaven ? 
Now it is clear, that the disciples who " believed on His 
name," did not join with the Jews in denying that Jesus 
came down from heaven. They believed that proposi- 
tion, and did not murmur at it, as did the Jews. The 
first and only thing they murmured at was that " hard 
saying," which caused the Jews to strive among them- 
selves. The word strive is a very expressive term, and 
shows a more intense degree of excitement than is ex- 
pressed by the word murmur. When our Lord said He 
came down from heaven, the Jews murmured, while the 
disciples believed. But when He put forth another prop- 
osition, more difficult for them to believCg the Jews, 
" strove among themselves," and the disciples murmured. 
It is clear that the term " Jews " is used by the historian 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



to distinguish those who did not, from those who did, 
beUeve on Christ. 

If, then, it be true, that Christ only continued to 
teach the same doctrine He had taught in the first part 
of His discourse, and which His disciples believed, and 
they still understood Him correctly in the metaphorical 
sense, how could they have murmured at it, and called it 
a hard saying? Would they now murmur at what they 
had before believed? If so, why? Such a course as 
these murmuring disciples pursued is utterly inconsistent 
with any other hypothesis than the one, that, like the 
Jews, they understood Christ in the literal sense. The 
whole narrative is full and clear to this point. The 
historian states that the murmuring disciples heard this 
hard saying, and asked, " Who can hear it ? " St. John 
unquestionably refers to the saying that gave so much 
offence to the Jews ; and, as he speaks of these murmur- 
ing disciples asking a question substantially the same 
with that asked by the Jews, he must mean that they 
(the murmuring disciples) understood our Lord in the 
same literal sense. 

It being a proven position, that these murmuring 
disciples understood our Lord in the literal sense, the 
question arises, did they understand Him correctly? 

Let us, then, examine the language of our Lord, used 
by Him in His reply to these murmuring disciples : He 
said unto them, Doth this offend you ? " Is not this 
unaccountable language in the mouth of a Speaker, whose 
hearers have simply misunderstood, but have not, in 
fact, disputed His real proposition? Did Christ mean 
to ask, " Does the imaginary proposition, which I did 
not make, offend you ? " That they were offended is 
certain ; and if they simply misunderstood our Lord's 
language, then they were only offended at an imaginary 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



305 



proposition. They had simply misunderstood Him, and 
there was, therefore, in their minds, no real cause of 
offence. 

But such a question could alone be predicated upon 
the fact, that the cause of offence was a real subsisting, 
and not a mere imaginary, doctrine. And the efforts of 
Christ are, therefore, not directed to an explanation of 
His meaning, but to a proof of the truth of His prop- 
osition. 

In further sustaining His proposition, in His reply 
to these murmuring disciples, who had heard His answers 
to the Jews, our Lord adapted His arguments to the 
state of their minds and predicated them upon the state 
of their previous belief. They had believed and readily 
embraced His doctrine — they had not disputed the fact 
that He came down from heaven, and that He was there 
before; but like those disciples represented by the good 
seed falling into stony ground, (]\Iatt. xiii, 20, 21.) they 
now met a real, not an imaginary difficulty. Christ, 
therefore, said to them, " What and if ye shall see the 
son of man ascend up where he was before. It is the 
spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the 
w^ords that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they 
are life. But there are some of you that believe not. 
Therefore said I unto you that no man can come unto 
me, except it were given unto him of my Father." 

The meaning of Christ in these extracts would seem 
to be clear, and perfectly consistent with the literal 
sense, and wholly irreconcilable with the metaphorical. 
The substance was this : 

" You consider it impossible that I should give you 
my flesh to eat ; you question my power ; you did believe 
that I came down from heaven ; if you see me ascend up 
where I was before, will that be more difficult than for 



3o6 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



me to have come down? and are not both as difficult as 
for me to give you my flesh to eat? The proposition is 
hard to the natural man; it is the spirit that quickeneth 
the mind to believe — the flesh profiteth nothing to this 
result : you must not rely upon yourselves alone, but up- 
on God, for I have told you already that no man can 
come to me unless it be given him of my Father, and 
this you did not dispute: my words are spirit and life, 
but there are some of you that believe not the prop- 
osition I have propounded." 

We may give the words of our Lord, in reply to the 
objection of these murmuring disciples, any construc- 
tion we please; and still, one thing is clear; they were 
solely directed to sustain an understood and disputed 
proposition. If not, why did our Lord say. " My words 
are spirit and life," when they had simply been mis- 
understood? To say that words are true, when their 
true meaning has not been disputed, would be idle. Be- 
sides this, our Lord makes a statement of a matter of 
simple fact that could not possibly be true, unless these 
murmuring disciples did understand Him correctly. He 
tells them, But there are some of you that believe not." 
They had said, " This is a hard saying, who can bear 
it?" which means, who can believe it? (John viii, 43; 
ix, 27.) And Christ tells them that they do not be- 
lieve. They could not disbelieve a proposition they 
never understood. The only thing they had disputed was 
this hard saying, that He would give them His flesh 
to eat; and it was in reference to this proposition, 
and to this only, that our Lord told them they believed 
not." 

If then, these murmuring disciples simply misunder- 
stood our Lord's meaning how could He tell them, " you 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



believe not ? " If the Protestant view be right, these 
disciples refused to believe a proposition never advanced, 
and one that was not true. How can you class men, 
who simply misunderstood a proposition, with unbelievers 
of the proposition itself? What sort of logic or truth 
is there in saying to a man, who simply misunderstands 
you, and has a mere imaginary proposition in his mind, 
" Sir, you believe not ? " Christ certainly intended to 
let these disciples know that their error consisted in not 
believing. This could not be true, if they simply mis- 
understood. There could be no wrong in disbelieving 
a supposed untrue proposition. And Christ not only tells 
these disciples that they did not believe; but the apostle 
himself classes them among genuine unbelievers. (64.) 

But it may be said, that at the precise time when 
these murmuring disciples said, who can bear it," they 
did misunderstand our Lord; but that His subsequent 
words, found in verses 62 and 63, so explained His 
meaning as that they did correctly understand Him at 
the time He said, " you believe not." This would be 
assuming facts outside the record, not only without the 
slightest evidence, but contrary to the simple narrative 
of the facts as stated in it. We are informed that Jesus 
knew in Himself that the disciples murmured, (61.) 
but there is not the slightest intimation anywhere, either 
by St. John, who puts in several explanations of his own 
in this same chapter, or by the words or acts of Christ, 
that He was misunderstood by any one. On the con- 
trary, we are expressly informed that these disciples 
did dispute one proposition, and we are not informed 
that they did dispute any other; and, therefore Christ 
could only refer to that one — that hard saying as they 
at first understood it. 



3o8 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



How did the apostles understand our Lord? 

Let us now ascertain how the twelve understood our 
Lord. 

We are told that many of His disciples left Him, and 
walked no more with Him. It was then that our Lord 
put this mournful and solemn question to the twelve: 
" Will ye also go away ? " And then the intrepid and 
ardent soul of Peter answered, " Lord, to whom shall 
we go? Thou hast the words of eternal Hfe. And we 
believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son 
of the living God." 

It is apparent that Christ's question to the twelve 
was predicated upon the same state of facts as His ques- 
tion to the murmuring disciples, " Doth this offend you ? " 
and upon the ground that the twelve had the same in- 
ducements to disbelieve, as these murmuring disciples 
who had left Him. If the twelve understood Him in a 
different sense from the Jews and disbelieving disciples, 
there could be no reason for asking such a question. 
The fervent and confiding answer of Peter shows con- 
clusively that the twelve also understood their Lord as 
the others had understood Him; that is, literally. The 
minds of the twelve had to overcome the same difficulty 
that had wrecked the faith of the many who abandoned 
their Lord. The reason given by Peter was the most 
simple, logical and rational. We are sure you are that 
Christ, and have the words of eternal life. This was 
enough, and they were compelled to believe anything 
that Christ propounded, whether they comprehended it 
or not. 

The twelve then understood Him in a literal sense, 
and believed that which the others disbelieved. And if 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



they at that time beheved the doctrine that Christ would 
Hterally give them His flesh to eat, when and where 
did they ever change their opinion, and where is that 
important fact recorded ? We find a part of the disciples 
at one time disbelieving a certain doctrine, and the 
chosen twelve believing the same thing at the same time ; 
and if we can find no evidence of any change in the 
minds of the twelve, what right have we to say, either 
that there was such a change, or that they did not cor- 
rectly understand the meaning of our Lord's words? 
At a given time we find, in the minds of the apostles, 
a certain construction of our Lord's words ; we find this 
construction was not objected to by Him, but was con- 
firmed by word and act, that could not be reconciled 
with any other construction; and we find afterwards 
not the slightest evidence to correct such an error, if 
error it was, and upon what ground can we assume 
that these apostles were then mistaken? It is true, there 
are several cases where it is stated that the chosen 
apostles misunderstood our Lord's meaning at the time 
His words were spoken ; but in these cases we are ex- 
pressly informed of the fact, and of the further fact, 
that they afterwards understood Him correctly, and we 
are also informed what Christ did in fact mean. Now, 
in these instances, our doubts are wholly removed by 
explicit explanations; and yet, in this important case, 
where a great doctrine was taught, upon which hung 
eternal life and death, and where the misconstruction of 
our Lord's words was in reference to a most vitally essen- 
tial matter, and gave them a meaning precisely opposite to 
the one intended ; and yet we have no explanation — not 
one of those so often put in by St. John, to make the 
meaning clear. 



310 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



The words of institution. 

As the Catholic understands it, the Blessed Eucharist 
was promised in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, 
leaving the mere manner in which it was to be given, 
to be explained by the institution of the Sacrament. 

The history of this institution is given in the first 
three Gospels, and in the epistles of St. Paul. The nar- 
rations are substantially the same, though differing in 
some slight particulars. In all, the words are given: 
" This is my body. This is my blood." St. John, in his 
Gospel, says nothing about the institution of the Sacra- 
ment. 

Our Lord says : " This is my body ; " and the Catholic 
responds : " Lord, I believe it to be thy body ; " while 
the Protestant replies : Lord, I believe it to be a figure 
of thy body." Who replies, yea, yea, to our Lord's 
assertion? Is it the Catholic or Protestant? 

The Catholic maintains that the verb " to be," in the 
passage, is to be taken in its ordinary literal sense, and 
the Protestant contends that it ought to be taken in a 
figurative sense, equivalent to the word represent. 

In the Old and New Testament this verb is used 
many thousands of times in its literal sense. These 
examples are too numerous to require any specifications. 
The literal sense of the term is then the general rule. 
Those who oppose the literal and simple construction are 
compelled to show two things: 

1. That there are exceptions to the general rule. 

2. That the verb " to be," in this case, comes properly 
within the exception. 

The first thing the Protestant must show, is, that there 
are exceptions. To do this they bring forward a num- 
ber of passages which may be classed as follows: 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



1. Genesis xli, 26, 27 : " The seven good kine are 
seven years." Dan. vii, 24 : " The ten horns are ten 
kings." Matt, xiii, 38, 39 : " The field is the v^orld'" etc. 
I Cor. X, 4 : " And that rock was Christ." Rev. i, 20 : 
" The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." 
Gal. iv, 24 : " These are the two covenants." John x, 
7 : " I am the door." 

2. John XV, I : " I am the true vine." 

Some of these cases clearly estabHsh the first point, 
That there are exceptions to the general rule. The 
next and most important point to prove, is, that the 
words " This is my body," come within the exceptions. 
To do this the same passages are relied upon. 

In considering these texts, let us see how they are 
marked so as to be known as exceptions. There must 
be some mark or distinction to point out exceptions; 
otherwise, we could not know them to be such. The 
usages, habits, and practice of the writer, considered in 
connection with the usages of language will enable us 
to determine the exceptions. If we find that in relation 
to a certain class or classes of cases, the verb " to be " 
is used in a metaphorical sense, when it is generally 
used in its literal sense, then all cases that come within 
such class or classes, constitute exceptions. But the 
existence of such exceptions, thus marked and distin- 
guished, is no evidence that other exceptions exist, which 
are not thus marked and distinguished. So far from 
it, the existence of such exceptions, thus marked and 
distinguished, is a clear proof that other cases, not thus 
designated, are not exceptions, but are intentionally left 
to be governed by the general rule. 

It is perfectly clear that exceptions do exist — that they 
are so marked as to be distinguished from the general 
rule — and that we must distinguish between them. Be- 



312 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



fore the words of institution can be considered as an 
exception, it must be shown that they belong to one or 
the other of the classes stated. In other words, it must 
be shown that these passages are parallel to the words 
of institution, otherwise they prove nothing. 

The first class of alleged exceptions considered. 

How do we know that the passages in the first class 
stated do constitute exceptions? 

In the first two cases we are expressly told that Joseph 
and Daniel were interpreting dreams, and in the third, 
that our Lord was interpreting a parable. In the fourth 
case, St. Paul first says : " And did all drink the same 
spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock ; " 
and then tells us, "And that Rock was Christ." The 
apostle, for the purpose of explanation, first transforms 
the real rock of Horeb into a spiritual or fictitious rock, 
and then says that spiritual rock was Christ. The lan- 
guage of St. Paul, taken in connection with the his- 
torical relation of the Israelites, drinking the water flow- 
ing from the rock of Horeb, leaves his meaning so clear, 
that no one has ever misunderstood him. The case from 
the Apocalypse is equally clear. " Write the things 
which thou hast seen. . . . The mystery of the 
seven stars. . . . The seven stars are the seven 
angels." Here the apostle John was explaining a mys- 
tery. So, in the case from Galatians, St. Paul is care- 
ful to inform us that he is explaining an allegory. 
" Which things are an allegory, for these are the two 
covenants." In reference to the last case, I am the 
door," our Lord was interpreting a parable. We are 
first informed that Christ opened the eyes of a man 
blind from his birth — that Jesus had found the man 
after the Jews had cast him out, and some of the 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 313 



Pharisees being present, and making objections, our Lord 
commences the discourse in which these words occur. 
(John- ix, I -4 1.) In the tenth chapter he continues the 
same discourse, and in the first five verses gives in part the 
parable of the sheep fold. In verses 6 and 7 we are 
told, " This parable spoke Jesus unto them, but they un- 
derstood not what things they were which He spoke unto 
them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep." Our Lord 
goes on in succeeding verses, still speaking of the same 
thing, and in verse 26 He tells the Jews that they be- 
lieve not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto 
you." 

In all these cases we are clearly told that these passages 
are explanations of symbolical instruction. Some are 
dreams, some parables, some allegories, and some mys- 
teries. They all have the same character, and belong to 
the same class. 

And the reason of this is plain. In symbolical instruc- 
tion, the symbolical characters are fictitious, and the 
characters represented are real. Hence, when we are 
first told that the symbolical characters are fictitious, 
and the represented characters are real, the usages of 
language allow the use of the verb " to be " between two 
nominatives, (one fictitious and the other real,) in a 
figurative sense. There is no more chance for mistake 
in the explanation of a dream, parable, or allegory, be- 
cause the form of the expression is in the positive, than 
there is in the relation of the same, when the language 
used is in the same positive form. We are first told that 
it is symbolical in all the cases, and this constitutes a 
key to the meaning. When we are once so informed, 
the statement proceeds as if the facts are real. " Behold 

a sower went forth to sow." 
22 



314 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



Now these cases constitute a class of exceptions, for 
the simple reason, that they were all cases of symbolical 
instruction, in which the characters representing others 
were expressly stated to be fictitious, not real. How can 
such cases apply to the words, ^' This is my body? " Are 
we informed that there had been any dream here? any 
parable? any allegory? any mystery? or any explanation 
of any such things ? Not at all. 

We find the exceptions of the first class so plainly 
marked and distinguished, that no one ever yet had any 
difficulty in understanding them as such. But in refer- 
ence to the words of institution, we find no such dis- 
tinction. And is this want of such a character any rea- 
son why we should put them into the same class with 
parables, dreams, allegories and mysteries? The very 
fact that they are different requires us to put them in 
different classes. If the writer intended that the words 
in this case should be taken metaphorically, why did He 
not follow His usual course, and mark them as excep- 
tions? Having marked all the cases that we know to be 
exceptions, why are we not given here the same marks 
to aid us, as in the other cases? For the reason, that 
the words of institution constitute no exception, and are 
purposely left to come under the general rule of literal 
interpretation. 

The second class of alleged exceptions considered. 

* The case given under this class is simply one of com- 
parison and constitutes no exception to the general rule. 

The words, " I am the vine," occur in a long dis- 
course of our Lord with the eleven. Our Lord instituted 
a comparison between Himself and the vine. His mean- 
ing is, " I am as the vine, ye are as the branches." This 
is clearly shown in verses 4 and 6. 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 315 



In comparing two known and similar things together, 
it is very common to omit explanatory terms, such as 
resembles, like, as, similar. The reason is, because the 
known resemblance of the two things compared together, 
renders the use of these terms unnecessary. The ten- 
dency of all usage is toward brevity. Evefy composition 
is full of elliptical sentences. 

The words of institution cannot be put into the second 
class for the reason that no comparison was intended 
by Christ between bread and His body. No one, so far 
as I am advised, has ever contended that any comparison 
was meant. 

We have now finished the consideration of some of 
those alleged cases of exception to the general rule; 
and we have seen that the only cases wherein the verb " to 
be " is used in the figurative sense, are those cases where 
an explanation of symbolical instruction is given. I have 
endeavored to show that none of these passages has any 
appHcation to the words of institution. They are not 
cases in point — they are plainly marked and distin- 
guished (in most of the cases in express words, and in 
all by the clear context) as special cases not coming 
under the general rule, but as clear exceptions to it — 
and that the words of institution cannot be brought into 
this class of exceptions, for the reason there was no 
dream — no parable — no allegory — and no explana- 
tion of any such thing in these words, nor in the cir- 
cumstances attending their utterance. They were used 
in making our Lord's last Testament — in the solemn 
institution of the Sacrament — and at a time, and in 
reference to a subject where the use of words in a new 
and unheard of symbolical sense would have been cer- 
tainly as much out of place as we can possibly imagine. 

And I must think that if the question of construction 



3i6 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



regarded the language of a human lawgiver or writer, 
and such examples, taken . from the mere interpretation 
of dreams, parables, and allegories, were brought for- 
ward by any party for the purpose of interpreting lan- 
guage used in its plain form, and not in application to 
dreams, parables, and allegories, that such party would 
be considered as governed by some strange and most 
singular delusion. In reference to the interpretation of 
Scripture, I must think that such a resort arises from 
the extreme destitution of materials in the shape of 
parallel passages. Nothing but the dry distress of writers 
could induce them to bring forward such examples. 

With all due deference, I submit to the candor of 
my readers, whether these cases of exception, being thus 
so clearly marked and designated, as such, do not the 
more clearly show the literal sense of the words of in- 
stitution. He who seeks to show an exception to the 
general rule of the plain ordinary literal sense, ought 
to make his case clear, by showing that the passage is 
strictly within a particular class of exceptions. The 
very fact that all conceded exceptions range themselves 
under one class — namely, the explanation of symbolical 
instruction, and that they are thus clearly marked as such 
does strengthen the general rule, by showing that no 
other exceptions are intended. Is there, in the Bible, 
one solitary case, where, in the solemn institution of a 
Sacrament, or in making of a last testament, language 
is used in a new and unexplained symbolical sense? 

Giving the name of the thing represented to the figure. 

This is one of the most popular objections against the 
literal sense of the words, "This is my body." It is. 
relied upon by Protestant writers generally. The ex- 
amples cited are, a picture, a map, or bust. If we point 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



to a portrait or bust, and say " this is " such a person, 
naming him, or if we point to a map, and say " this is 
Europe," we are at once understood. 

Portraits, busts, and maps are representations by re- 
semblances. They are but images of the things they 
represent. Symbol is the very essence of their existence. 
They can only exist as symbols. This fact is known to 
all. Common usage is always founded upon common 
sense, and this never requires the doing of an idle thing. 
Therefore, when we point to a picture, we are not re- 
quired to inform the person whom we address, that it 
is a picture. His own senses assure him of that fact. 
But as he does not know the person or thing represented, 
we must inform him of this fact. 

The case under consideration is wholly different. Ac- 
cording to the Protestant view, Christ was for the first 
time constituting bread the symbol of His body. There 
being not the slightest natural resemblance between the 
figure and the object, and bread having an independent 
existence as a real object in itself, and not as a figure, 
it was just as necessary to inform us of the fact that it 
was then made a figure, as to inform us of the thing 
it represented. When an arbitrary figure is first con- 
stituted such, no one can know that it is a figure at all, 
unless so informed. 

If a speaker should use a known term in a new figura- 
tive sense for the first time, he should give us a definition 
of this new sense. Thus, when our Lord instituted the 
Sacrament of the Last Supper, and, for the first time, 
made it commemorated, He was careful to inform us of 
that fact. " Do this in remembrance of me." If, then, 
the bread was used for the first time on that occasion 
to be a figure of the body of Christ, why did He not 
so inform us? Why inform us in one case, and not in 



3i8 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



the other? Is not the fact that upon that occasion He 
did so inform us in one case, and not in the other, a 
very strong proof that the two cases are not ahke? 

This objection is founded upon the same basis as that 
drawn from symbohcal instruction. It is but an attempt 
to apply the language used in the explanation of pic- 
tures, to the interpretation of positive forms of expres- 
sion, not relating to any such thing. The symbolical 
characters in mysteries, parables, allegories, and dreams 
are all stated to be fictitious, and a picture is known to 
be but an image because it can be nothing else; and 
when we come to point out the thing represented, which 
has a real, or assumed real, existence, usage allows us to 
use the verb " to be " in a figurative sense because we are 
speaking of things first admitted to be figurative. But 
in reference to the bread, we are not told that it was 
figurative — there was no resemblance, such as a pic- 
ture has to the thing represented — how, then, could we 
know it was a figure? 

The words of St. Paul. 
St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, speaks 
in two places of the Eucharist. As the two translations 
differ in one material point, I shall give both. 

I Cor. X., i6, 

"The cup of blessing which "The chalice of benediction 
we bless, is it not the com- which we bless, is it not the 
munion of the blood of Christ? communion of the blood of 
The bread which we break, Christ? And the bread which 
is it not the communion of we break, is it not the partak- 
the body of Christ?" (King ing of the body of the Lord." 
Jas. Trans.) (Douay Trans.) 

I Cor. xi., 27, 29. 

" Wherefore, whosoever shall " Therefore, whoever shall 
eat this bread, and drink this eat this bread, or drink the 
cup unworthily, shall be guilty chalice of the Lord unworthily, 
of the body and blood of the shall be guilty of the body and 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



Lord. . . . For he that eat- blood of the Lord. . . . For 

eth and drinketh unworthily, he that eateth and drinketh un- 

eateth and drinketh damnation worthily, eateth and drinketh 

to himself, not discerning the judgment to himself, not dis- 

body of the Lord." cerning the body of the Lord." 

" The communion of the body of Christ." The word 
" communion " is here used in the sense of partaking, as 
shown by the two succeeding verses. There is then a 
real partaking here, and not a figurative eating. In the 
sixth of John the words " eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man," the Protestant says, mean a figurative eating, 
and in this extract they mean an actual partaking of the 
bread, and not of the body. In the sixth of John the 
real flesh was meant, but not the real eating. Here the 
real eating is meant but not the real body. The Catholic 
understands that it was a real eating, and a real flesh and 
body, in both cases ; and certainly this construction is the 
most simple, natural, and consistent. 

If the words body and blood " are used in the first 
extract from St. Paul in their literal sense, the Catholic 
is right. So, if the sixth of John refers to the Eucharist, 
the word " flesh " being used in its literal sense in verse 
52, the equivalent word " body " in the extract from St. 
Paul, should be used in the same literal sense. For if 
the Scripture in these different places refers to the same 
thing, the words should be taken in their literal sense 
in both places. 

Our Lord having instituted the Eucharist before St. 
Paul wrote, there is nothing inconsistent with the 
Catholic view, in the language of the apostle, as to " eat- 
ing the bread and drinking the cup " ; because the prac- 
tice of still calUng a thing after its change, by its former 
name, is very common in Scripture. This would be par- 
ticularly so, when the appearances were still the same. 



320 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



When the sense is once settled, the term will afterwards 
be used in that sense. Joseph was repeatedly called the 
father of our Lord. (Luke ii, 41, 48.) And yet no one 
was. misled by this, because we are informed in pre- 
ceding places that Joseph was only His foster father. 
So, when the water was changed into wine, it was still 
called water after the change. So, when the eyes of the 
blind man had been opened, he was afterwards still 
called the blind man." (John ix, 17.) So, when 
Aaron's rod had been changed into a serpent, it was still 
called a rod. (Gen. viii.) So, the angels that came 
to Lot were called men in some places, and angels in 
another. They were called men after they were stated to 
be angels. (Gen. xix.) Things in Scripture are often 
represented according to their appearance. Joshua is 
represented as commanding the sun to stand still, and 
the sun as obeying him. So the Catholic continues to 
call the elements bread and wine after consecration, and 
yet he believes in the change. 

What will we do with the word " body " in the first 
extract from St. Paul? If we construe it literally, and 
say that it was a literal partaking of a real body, then 
the sense is entirely consistent with the Catholic view. 
In the first extract the apostle says " communion of the 
body," and in the second " guilty of the body," " not dis- 
cerning the body." Now if the word " body " be used 
figuratively in one of these places, must it not be used 
in the same sense in the other passages? Is it not used 
in all the three cases to designate the real body? 

" Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." What 
is the meaning of this phrase, as shown by Scripture 
usage ? " He is guilty of death ; " referring to the pun- 
ishment. (Matt, xxvi, 66.) For whosoever shall keep 
^the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



321 



of all." (St. James ii, 10.) This case from St. James 
is the only parallel case in the New Testament. Here 
the phrase is applied to the object against which the 
offence was committed. In like manner the offence of an 
unworthy communion is against the body of our Lord. 
So, if the body and blood of Christ be present in the 
Eucharist, we can well see how St. Paul could use the 
expression " guilty of the body and blood." 

" Not discerning the Lord's body." We are first told 
by St. Paul, that the party is guilty of the body; and 
then afterwards we are told that he drinks judgment to 
himself, not discerning the body. If the body be not 
present, how could it be discerned. But if the body be 
present, and be received as profane food, then we can 
well understand how the unworthy communicant would 
not discern the body. 

It would seem that the passages from St. Paul are not 
only consistent with the Catholic view, but that the Hteral 
sense can alone give them their legitimate force and 
effect. When the language of St. Paul is taken in con- 
nection with that of Christ in the sixth of John and in 
the subsequent words of institution, the unity, simplicity, 
and force of the Catholic view, can be seen at once. We 
have one united and consistent view, running through a 
number of passages, and harmonizing with the whole 
and forming one plain and simple system of interpreta- 
tion. The arguments in support of Christianity, when 
taken and considered separately, are not so strong and 
conclusive as when united. Like the ten thousand small 
streams, that, separately considered, are insignificant, yet 
when united, form the mighty river, rolling its resistless 
volume to the ocean: so, the arguments of Christianity, 
when taken separately may fail to convince, yet when 
united and considered as a whole, they pour their com- 



322 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



bined proof in one overpowering stream upon the mind. 
In like manner, the proofs of that wonderful doctrine 
the Real Presence, when taken separately, do not seem 
so conclusive as when combined and viewed in their con- 
centrated force. It is then that the harmonious and beau- 
tiful features of that tender and sublime faith appear in 
their united consistency. So strong are the proofs from 
the most simple and unequivocal construction of the lan- 
guage of the Scriptures, that if the doctrine was not so 
hard to flesh and blood, it would seem that there never 
could have existed any doubt upon the subject. 

That it is a contradiction of our senses and impossible. 

These objections are much relied upon by most Protes- 
tant writers, such as Mr. Hallam, Dr. Clark, Mr. Horne, 
Dr. Tomline, and others. 

Mr. Horne tells us that whatever is repugnant to 
natural reason cannot be the true meaning of the Scrip- 
tures." 

In what essential particular does this assumption differ 
from the very basis upon which the Infidel stands ? They 
are both founded upon the supposed sufficiency of human 
reason to determine the essential laws of matter, and the 
rules by which God should govern the world, and the 
limits of His power. The Infidel takes the Scriptures, 
and gives them what he thinks a natural and proper con- 
struction, and he finds therein stated, facts and doctrines 
at war with his reason and his experience ; and he, there- 
fore, rejects the entire system. Mr. Horne is less clear, 
and not so consistent. He first admits that the Scrip- 
tures^ are true — that they reveal stupendous mysteries, 
proven by stupendous miracles; and after these admis- 
sions, whatever construction, however plain, simple, and 
natural, which evolves a doctrine " repugnant to natural 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



reason," or what he may consider such^ he rejects. In 
other words, he prunes off all absurd shoots from the tree 
of Christianity, until he brings it to that form of abstract 
ideal beauty, existing in his own mind. The Infidel, up- 
on the basis of the sufficiency of his reason to determine 
what is possible with God, and what sort of government 
God ought to give to man, rejects the entire system. Not 
so with ^Ir. Horne. He admits the system, but tears it 
into fragments, and then selects only such as may suit 
his " natural reason." 

We shall proceed to examine these arguments at one 
view, for they are all essentially based upon the same 
principle ; i. e., the ground of physical impossibility. 

We have already spoken of known miracles, as being 
violations or suspensions of the known laws of nature. 
We find, as a part of the known laws of nature, that two 
substances cannot occupy the same space at the same 
time and that the same body cannot occupy dift'erent 
spaces at the same time. If we should see a single body 
occupy different spaces, or two bodies the same space, at 
the same time, we are competent to say that it is a 
miracle. But while we could well say that such an event 
was a miracle, could we undertake to say that such an 
event is impossible ? There is immeasurable distance be- 
tween the two ! In one we undertake only to determine 
what is consistent with the present known laws of nature ; 
but in the other, we assume to put limits to the Eternal. 
What ideas have mere finite beings of Infinite power? 
Just in the same proportion as finite to infinite — as time 
to eternity. 

The Protestant philosopher admits that God spoke the 
world into existence from nothing — that miracles are 
not only possible, but have occurred — yet when told that 
the same Infinite Creator can suspend, modify, over- 



324 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



come, or change any of the laws of nature, and can give 
to a body some of the properties of the spirit, he objects, 
upon the ground of impossibility. He concedes that some 
of the laws of matter are within the power of God, but 
insists that others are not. And such objection is simply 
based upon the results of his limited experience of an 
existing system; when he knows absolutely nothing of 
mere possible systems ; and could not, therefore, pretend 
to form any accurate conception concerning them. 

The properties of matter were given it by the Creator, 
when He formed the universe from nothing. He who 
made, surely can destroy, suspend, or change. If God 
can take from matter one property, or overcome or sus- 
pend, for the time, its effect, upon what principle of rea- 
son can we say that He cannot do so in reference to 
another or to several? We believe that God created 
spirits. These we consider not subject to the laws of 
matter. The Atheist rejects the belief in the existence 
of the soul, because the eye and knife of the surgeon can- 
not detect its seat in the human brain. And he does this 
notwithstanding he knows we have no accurate concep- 
tions of the magnitude or minuteness of organized bodies. 
He knows that minute insects exist, with perfect organ- 
izations, hundreds of which can sport in a single drop 
of water; and that the flea, when examined by a micro- 
scope, appears a horrid monster of enormous size. The 
Protestant believes that Satan is a created but fallen 
spirit ; but he tempts men in Europe, Asia, America, and 
Africa, at the same time. Now, upon what principle of 
reason or philosophy can we say that God has power 
over some of the properties of matter, and not over all? 
If God can create a spirit, could He not impress a por- 
tion or the whole of its properties upon a body, and over- 
come or suspend some or all of the properties of matter, 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 325 



at the same time ? In other words, could not God, by His 
infinite power take from a body, or overcome, for the 
time, that property which prevents it from occupying 
two or more places at the same time? Who is that 
philosopher who would venture to say that Christ, who 
raised his own body from the grave, could not give that 
body the property in question? Can any man with all 
his pride of intellect, have sufficient confidence in his 
imaginary knowledge of mere possible systems, as to put 
it against the assertion of God? 

There are metaphysical but no physical, impossibilities 
with God. The former result from the unchangeable 
character of His attributes. When the Infidel alleges 
truly that God could not make two hills without a valley 
between, the impossibility is metaphysical, not physical. 
The valley is a part of the two hills, and it is meta- 
physically impossible for God to do and not to do, the 
same thing at the same time. But all material things 
were created by God, and He has, for that reason, perfect 
and unlimited physical dominion over them to do any- 
thing He pleases that is not, in its effects, contrary to 
His own nature. The presence of Christ's body in the 
Eucharist cannot be against the character of God, and 
cannot be physically impossible. In Scripture, we are 
assured of metaphysical impossibilities with God, but it 
would be difficult to find any intimation that there could 
be any physical impossibility' with Him. On the con- 
trary, our Lord, when speaking of a supposed physical 
impossibility, declares that " all things are possible with 
God." There is no limit to this general declaration, and 
no qualification of it, as applicable to the class of pos- 
sibility our Lord had in His mind when using these broad 
words. 

If our knowledge of the existing laws of matter ought 



326 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



to have any effect upon our ideas of physical possibility 
or impossibility with God, then I must say, that the 
position of the Atheist is more consistent than that of 
those who first concede that God can control some of the 
laws of matter and then deny His power over others. 
The Atheist lays down a consistent rule, when he will 
admit of no interference to the laws of matter. But the 
Protestant philosopher admits the power of God over 
the subject matter, and then presumes to set limits to the 
power itself. 

That the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is 
a most incomprehensible mystery, and a most stupendous 
miracle, must be conceded. It is like any other mystery. 
Human reason cannot fathom mysteries. If it could, it 
could fathom everything. There could then be no limits 
to its power. We should be as wise as our Creator. No 
man can comprehend the mysterious union of the human 
and Divine in Christ. Had I waited until I could com- 
prehend that mystery, I should never have been a Chris- 
tian. 

There are many of the most familiar facts that we 
cannot comprehend. How is it that a single spark will 
set on fire and consume a whole city? How does the 
fire increase? How is it that the simple will of a man 
will put into instant motion all his muscular powers, and 
at once overcome some of the cardinal laws of matter? 
How is it that the heart, from our birth to our death, 
never ceases its pulsations day or night? What power 
keeps it going? How is it that the moment the mys- 
terious principle of life is extinguished, our bodies be- 
come like any other inert mass of matter? I suppose if 
an individual was brought up on a solitary island, with 
no opportunity to see or hear of a single instance of 
death, that at the age of thirty, he would have no con- 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



ception of death, and would think it impossible if sug- 
gested to him. Even with our conclusive knowledge of 
the fact, people in health never feel like dying, and most 
of them act as if they never expected to die. 

How to explain the mystery of the Trinity I cannot 
tell. But on the other hand, I cannot see how I can re- 
ject the belief of this great mystery, without holding 
Christ to be a mere impostor. Nor can I understand 
how He could be either a Mediator or Redeemer, unless 
the doctrine of the Trinity be true. The doctrine of 
original sin presents many difficulties; but reject it, and 
then I cannot understand how Christ could be a Re- 
deemer at all or what He had to redeem us from. Take 
away any of these doctrines, and we have but the shadow 
of Christianity left. The confident Socinian thinks that 
the absurdity of the doctrine of the Trinity is mathemat- 
ically demonstrable. But all this, against the clear reve- 
lation of Jesus Christ, does not amount to anything. We 
find ourselves too often mistaken in reference to abstract 
matters to rely with any confidence upon our weak ideas 
of such things. 

The evidence of some of our senses in receiving the 
Eucharist, ought not, any more than our abstract ideas 
of possibility, to influence us to doubt a revealed truth, 
especially a mystery. It may be a theme for ignorant 
ridicule or senseless declamation, but will hardly stand 
the test of theological or scientific truth. Philosophy 
and experience teach us that some of our senses at times 
deceive us 

Reilections. 

While I readily and cheerfully admit that there is a 
mystery and a miracle in the Real Presence, and that I 
cannot comprehend the mere manner of this mystery, I 



328 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



can see in the institution itself the utmost reason, beauty, 
and love. In other words^ I can see the best reasons 
for its institution, the greatest beauty in its doctrine, and 
the utmost display of love in its administration. 

Who ever has read the Bible, and has any tolerable 
knowledge of God's dealings with His servants, must 
have been struck with the fact, that He often tested their 
faith in the most severe and conclusive form. These 
tests were not designed for the information of God, but 
for the benefit of His servants. It is right and benefi- 
cent, in the nature of the relation of servant and master, 
that the fidelity of the servant should be submitted to a 
conclusive test. It is good for the servant himself, es- 
pecially when his eternal welfare depends upon his strict 
fidelity. 

The examples we find in the Old and New Testaments 
show the utility of tests of faith. These tests all passed 
away with the old dispensation. As Christ left us a 
finished and universal system, which is to endure unto 
the end of the world, and applicable to all nations, in all 
subsequent time, it would seem to have been reasonable 
and just, in itself, that He should establish a permanent 
test of faith, as enduring and uniform as faith itself. 
And if any test of faith was to remain, what could be 
more conclusive than the doctrine of the Real Presence? 

It requires a much greater degree of humble faith to 
believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 
than in a m.ere symbolical presence. This is conclusively 
shown by the fact that most of those who believe in the 
metaphorical sense, rely upon the testimony of their 
senses, and upon their abstract ideas of possibiHty. 
When they tell me that they believe it impossible for 
the body of Christ to be present in the Eucharist, they 
tell me, in substance, that if they were satisfied that 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 329 



such a doctrine was revealed in Scripture, they would re- 
ject the entire system of Christianity itself ; for it is 
clear, that a man cannot believe that which he considers 
impossible. 

The man that sincerely believes in the doctrine of 
the Real Presence has no seeds of infidelity in his mind. 
Such a man relies with implicit and unfaltering faith 
upon the Word of God. It is much easier, and requires 
a much less degree of faith, to believe in the miracles of 
the dim, distant past, than in those that are alleged to 
occur in our own presence, and in contradiction to some 
of our senses. We may believe, upon the Word of God, 
that the sense of Abraham and Lot, and others, were 
deceived; but when, upon the same Word of God, 
we are required to believe that our own senses are de- 
ceived in part, then comes the genuine and living test of 
faith in the Word of God, and the truth of the whole 
system. 

In looking over the chapters of the New Testament, 
especially the Gospels, one cannot but be forcibly struck 
with the great and paramount importance of faith. Our 
Saviour never failed to reward this cardinal virtue. In 
some cases He went out of the usual course of His 
ministry to reward it, as in the case of the woman of 
Canaan. He never failed to express His warm appro- 
bation of every confiding display of it. We find Him 
often reproving His disciples for their want of faith. 
And while our Lord was so careful to inculcate the ab- 
solute necessity of this first fundamental principle, He 
was no less careful to condemn that vice in the human 
heart which is the most determined enemy of faith — 
pride. There is no doctrine that so forcibly inculcates 
simple and unflinching faith as the doctrine of the Real 

Presence ; and there is no doctrine that requires a greater 
23 



330 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



disregard of the natural pride of the human mind. 

It was evidently the intention of Christ to keep the 
faith pure and entire. In the nature of the system 
it could not accommodate its truths to the views of men. 
It was, and ever must be, one and inflexible. While our 
Lord and His apostles, as to the mere manner of in- 
culcating truth, were as kind and gentle as could have 
been desired, they never softened the doctrines them- 
selves, for the purpose of gaining converts. And every 
attempt to extend the principles of the system, either by 
latitudinarian construction, or by any other means, so 
as to bring it down to the comprehension of natural 
reason, or the loose opinions of men, is only so much in- 
jury to the purity of the system itself. Like the idle at- 
tempt to increase the value of the circulating medium 
by debasing the coin, every attempt to shake this un- 
changeable system to suit the humors and versatilities of 
men, must necessarily render the system less lovely and 
beautiful, and, therefore, in the end, less attractive to 
the really pious and virtuous. In this way the progress 
of the system^ itself would be retarded. But by requiring 
a firm and implicit belief in continued displays of om- 
nipotent power and this upon the once-delivered and 
unqualified Word of God, and in opposition to some of 
our own senses, our Lord has given us, not only one 
of the most practical and severe tests of faith, but has 
given us a golden tie that binds us still more powerfully 
to the cause of virtue. For what can more powerfully 
impress the human soul than this awfully sublime and 
tender faith? What can more fully display, and con- 
tinue to display, that invincible love wherewith Christ has 
loved us? When we look back over His mortal career, 
and see how much He suffered, how many most griev- 
ous insults He endured, and then reflect that all this was 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 331 

purely voluntary, we cannot think that this great display 
of His love, is unbecoming His unbounded mercy to- 
wards those who love Him. 

The legitimate and natural effect upon the mind of 
the humble and sincere believer in the Catholic view, 
cannot be well described in words. It would seem 
manifest that such a belief must fill the mind and soul 
with the most tender and fervent impulses. Well might 
the Infidel Voltaire say, " Behold the man, who, amidst 
the awful ceremonies of the mass receives the holy 
communion. His whole soul is seized and strongly af- 
fected. Hardly does he breathe. He is detached from 
every earthly thing — he is united to his God. God 
is incorporated with his flesh and blood. Who will dare 
— who possibly can, after such an action, be guilty of 
any future relapses into sin? Is it possible to imagine a 
mystery that could bind a man more forcibly to virtue ? " 

The following extract from a very recent work — 
" Hilliard's Six Months in Italy " — describes the services 
at Christmas, at Peter's, Rome : " High Mass was said 
by the Pope in person, and the responses were sung by 
the choir. He performed the service with an air and 
manner expressive of true devotion, and though I felt 
that there was a chasm between me and the rite which 
I witnessed, I followed his movements in the spirit 
of respect, and not of criticism. But one impressive and 
overpowering moment will never be forgotten. When 
the tinkling of the bell announced the elevation of the 
Host, the whole of the vast assemblage knelt or. bowed 
their faces. The pavement was suddenly strewn with 
prostrate forms. A silence like that of death fell upon 
the church, as if some celestial vision had passed be- 
fore the living eyes, and hushed into stillness every pulse 
of human feeling. After a pause of a few seconds, dur- 



332 THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



ing which every man could have heard the beating of his 
own heart, a band of wind instruments, near the en- 
trance, of whose presence I had not been aware, poured 
forth a few sweet and solemn strains, which floated up 
the nave and overflowed the whole interior. The effect 
of this invisible music was beyond anything I have ever 
heard or expect to hear. The air seemed stirred with the 
trembling of angelic wings, or as if the gates of heaven 
had been opened, and a " wandering breath " from the 
songs of seraphs had been borne to the earth. How 
fearfully and wonderfully are we made ! A few sounds, 
which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been 
merely a passing luxury to the ear, heard at this moment, 
and beneath this dome, were like a purifying wave, 
which, for an instant, swept over the soul, bearing away 
with it all the soil and stains of earth, and leaving it 
pure as in infancy. There was, it is true, a refluent tide ; 
and the world, displaced by the solemn strain, came 
back with the echo ; but though we " cannot keep the 
heights we are competent to gain, we are the better 
for the too brief exaltation." 

The eloquent Protestant has beautifully described 
his own feelings ; but who shall adequately describe those 
of the humble Catholic? I cannot. Language is poor. 
There are some holy things beyond its power. 

In conclusion I may say that the language of Luther 
in regard to the consent and authority of the Fathers in 
support of the* literal sense, is very forcible. 

" That no one among the Fathers," says he, " numer- 
ous as they are, should have spoken of the Eucharist, 
as these men do, is truly astonishing. Not one of them 
speaks thus. There is only bread and wine, or, the 
body and blood of Christ are not present. And, when we 
reflect how often the subject is treated by them, it ceases 



THE HOLY EUCHARIST 



to be credible, it is not even possible, that not so much 
as once, such words as these should have dropped from 
some of them. Surely it was of moment that men 
should not be drawn into error. Still, they all speak 
with such precision, evincing that they entertained no 
doubt of the presence of the body and blood ! Had this 
not been their conviction, can it be imagined that, among 
so many, the negative opinion should not have been ut- 
tered on a single occasion? On other points this was 
not the case. But our Sacramentarians, on the other 
hand, can proclaim only the negative or contrary opinion. 
These men, then, to say all in one word, have drawn their 
notions neither from the Scriptures nor the Fathers." 
(Defensio verborum; Coenae, T. viii, p. 391; Edit. 
Wittemb. 1557, cited Con. H & B., 317.) 

It certainly is most unaccountable that, while so many 
Fathers have, beyond all question, maintained the literal 
sense, in terms too plain to be misunderstood, that no 
one opposed to such a view could ever be found to say 
in plain, explicit, negative terms, " The body and blood 
of Christ are not present." Certainly, if those who did 
support the literal sense, did speak in plain terms, those 
who did oppose it, if any, ought to have spoken in terms 
equally explicit. An explicit and plain affirmative as- 
sertion of such a doctrine, would instantly produce as 
plain and expHcit a negative, if such was intended. Di- 
rect negative must be the opposite of any direct proposi- 
tion, and would naturally be expressed in opposite terms, 
and, therefore, be equally plain. 



CHAPTER XII 



PENANCE, PURGATORY, AND INDULGENCES 

The general nature of the Sacrament of Penance. 

That the great end and purpose of the mission of 
Christ, was to rescue fallen man from sin, must be con- 
ceded by all who really believe in His divine character. 
That the blood of Christ was most ample to perfect 
the new law, and put it in a shape for practical admin- 
istration, in this present mode of our existence, must 
also be conceded. As we have before insisted, the mercy 
of Christ was displayed in perfecting the system itself, 
but when it was once adopted it became a matter of ir- 
revocable promise — a matter of law. As judged by this 
law (which law is the result of free grace), we can 
merit the forgiveness of sins. Our obedience to this 
law will entitle us to apply the merits of Christ to our- 
selves. He says, substantially : " If you will obey this 
law, you may call my merit your own, and receive the 
reward accordingly." 

We shall assume that man, under the law of Christ, 
does possess free agency — that he can commit sins be- 
fore baptism — that he can commit them afterwards — 
and that he can obtain forgiveness in both cases. 

That baptism is for the remission of past sins, is clear 
from the simple and explicit statement of St. Peter to 
the believing Jews on the day of Pentecost. They cried 

334 



4 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



335 



out : " What shall we do ? " and St. Peter promptly 
answered : " Repent and be baptized for the remission 
of sins." He did not tell them to believe, because he 
saw that they did already believe; and he, therefore, did 
not do that which would have been idle. Now it is 
clear that either baptism and repentance are both required 
for the remission of sins, or that neither is. If we can 
take out baptism, we can take away repentance. They 
are both closely joined together by the copulative con- 
junction, and must form requisites to remission of sins. 
The language is clear and explicit. 

When we look into the system of Christ, we see that 
He instituted a visible association of men, to which He 
gave a code of law for the government of each member, 
and of the whole — that He bestowed upon the officers of 
this visible continuing corporation, all the necessary 
powers to enforce the practical operation of His law in 
this world. We see that He used men as His agents, for 
the application of the law to particular cases. For this 
reason He instituted external visible ordinances or sacra- 
ments, as channels of grace and remission. The admin- 
istration of these is committed to the officers of His own 
kingdom. It could not, in the very nature of things, 
have been otherwise. If we once concede Christ to have 
been a lawgiver at all, then we must concede that a 
visible organization of those submitting to His govern- 
ment would follow — that visible Sacraments must exist 
in a visible Church ; and that where those sacraments do 
exist, the only purpose they can exist for, must be as 
channels of grace and remission. If a lawgiver, Christ 
must administer His own law; either directly by Him- 
self, of through His agents or officers. 

If, then, the visible external sacrament of baptism was 



336- THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 

given for the remission of past sins, and this sacrament 
cannot be repeated, is it not necessary, in the very na- 
ture of Christ's beautiful and harmonious system, that 
another visible sacrament should exist for the remission 
of sins committed after baptism? Are not sins com- 
mitted after baptism as great if not greater, than the 
same sins when committed before baptism, and equally 
as difficult to remit ? Is not the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper intended for behevers only? 

With regard to the faith of the Catholic Church in 
reference to this Sacrament, we shall quote the language 
of Dr. Wiseman, as found in his Moorfield Lectures, vol. 
2, p. 10 : 

" We believe, therefore, that the sacrament of penance 
is composed of three parts — contrition, or sorrow — 
confession, or its outward manifestation — and satis- 
faction, which, in some respects is a guarantee of perse- 
verance in that which we promise." 

By contrition the Catholic Church means all that any 
other Church means by repentance. The Catholic 
Church, therefore, not only requires all that any other 
church does, but also the additional requisites of confes- 
sion and satisfaction. And all those must be performed 
worthily, in order to obtain the grace of the sacrament. 

It is perfectly natural that the proud should consider 
confession as a burden, while it is equally natural that 
the humble should esteem it as a privilege. The truly 
humble penitent will naturally seek relief in confession. 
We see this proven by general experience. The most 
penitent criminals are always most willing to make a 
true confession of their crimes. The tribunal of confes- 
sion is a kind retreat for the truly sorrowing. It was 
given by our Lord in compassion to those who take up 
their cross, and meekly follow Him, as He required. 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANXE 



Did Christ confer upon the apostles the powers to remit 
and retain sinsf 

After our Lord had risen from the grave, and before 
He ascended into heaven, He said unto His disciples : 

" Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye re- 
mit (in the Douay Bible forgive) they are remitted unto 
them.; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are re- 
tained." (John XX, 23.) 

The sense is the same in both translations, as to remit 
and forgive sins, mean the same thing. That an entire 
forgiveness was meant, cannot be doubted. The lan- 
guage is general, and not limited; and must be as ex- 
tensive in meaning, as the same expressions used in other 
passages ; as for example in Luke vii, 47, 48 ; Matt, ix, 2. 

From this plain and explicit passage, it is clear that 
our Lord conferred upon the apostles the power to for- 
give or remit sins. But there was also another power 
bestowed upon the apostles the power to retain sins. 
And not only were these powers bestowed upon the 
Apostles but our Lord expressly pledged Himself that 
the exercise of these powers should be ratified by Him, 
in the same way that He pledged Himself to ratify in 
heaven, what they should do under the power to bind 
and loose. (Matt, xviii, 18.) 

In bestowing these important powers, did our Lord 
do an idle and useless thing? What did He intend by 
the very act of conferring them? Surely nothing 
else but that they should be put into practical operation. 
They could not have been given without intending to ac- 
complish some great end. The very act of conferring 
these powers was, in itself, a command to use them for 
the purpose intended. When the Constitution of the 
United States confers certain powers upon the different 



338 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



departments of government, it was intended that they 
should be put into practical operation; and the officer 
who fails to do so is guilty of a dereliction of duty. 

If, then, these powers were given for practical applica- 
tion, it follows invincibly, that the right to use all the 
means necessary to carry them into full and complete 
operation, was also given, as inseparable incidents of the 
powers themselves. To give the powers, and, at the 
same time, to deny the use of all the means necessary 
to carry them into execution, would have been entirely 
idle; because it would have defeated the very purpose 
had in view, when giving the powers themselves. It 
is a plain and fixed principle of the civil law, as well as 
of the law of common sense and of pure justice, to con- 
fer the use of the necessary means with the power itself. 
To give the power and withhold the means, would be 
about as sensible and efficient, as the exhortation, be ye 
clothed and fed." The incident must always follow 
the principle. Thus Chancellor Kent, speaking of a de- 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States, says : 

" The powers given to the government imply the ordi- 
nary means of execution; and the government in all 
sound reason and fair interpretation must have the choice 
of the means which it deems the most convenient and 
appropriate to the execution of the power." (i Kent, 
252.) 

It would seem impossible for any fair and logical mind, 
after due consideration, to deny the truth of either of 
these two propositions: i. That the power to forgive 
and the power to retain sins, were conferred upon the 
apostles ; 2. That with the main powers, were also given 
all the necessary incidents, to enable the apostles to carry 
the powers into practical effect. 

These two positions being true, it follows that remis- 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



339 



sion of sins committed after baptism, could only be had 
through the exercise of this power by the apostles. For 
it will be observed, that they had not only the power to 
remit, but also to retain sins. Both powers were given at 
the same time ; and both were equally intended for prac- 
tical appHcation to individual cases. If the transgressor 
could obtain remission, without the consent of the apos- 
tles, then their power to retain sins would have been 
idle, because inefficient. Christ meant something effect- 
ual in giving the power to retain sins ; and, therefore, He 
could not have intended to confer a contradictory power 
upon others. He would not give the power to the 
apostles, and require them to exercise it, and promise 
Himself to ratify their acts, and at the same time give 
the party offending, the power to escape the exercise 
of this function. He said explicitly, " Whose soever sins 
ye retain they are retained ; " and He could not, therefore, 
violate this promise. If the party offending could ob- 
tain remission of sins, without applying to the apostles, 
who had the power to retain, as well as to remit; then, 
as a matter of course, he would not apply to them, for 
fear they would retain his sins. In practical effect, the 
exercise of these two most important powers would have 
been defeated, unless we concede that, when given, they 
were intended as exclusive and supreme. 

The apostles, then, had the exclusive power to forgive 
and retain sins. What is sin? It is a violation of the 
law of God. One violation of this law constitutes one 
sin, and two or more violations constitute sins. Each 
transgression constitutes a separate and distinct offence. 
It is so in all laws defining crime. If a man steal two 
different pieces of property, at different times, he com- 
mits two separate and distinct offences. 

The power to remit and the power to retain sins, were 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



the powers to remit or retain each particular transgres- 
sion of the law. How, then, could the apostles remit or 
retain sins unless they knew what they were? It was 
not intended that these great powers should be exercised 
blindly. It could not have been intended that they should 
have the powers to remit and retain sin in one undis- 
tinguished mass; because the authority was to remit 
sins, not sin. If they could remit and retain sin, not 
sins, without distinguishing between different violations 
of the law, then the whole end and purpose of these 
powers would have been substantially defeated. Such 
a view would confound all distinctions between different 
sins, and different individuals ; and would, by this con- 
fusion of all just distinctions, render the exercise of 
these powers useless. How could the apostles tell what 
sins to remit or retain, unless they first knew what they 
were? 

The only way in which the apostles could know the 
secret sins or deeds of individuals, was by their confes- 
sion. As the apostles had the right to remit or retain, 
they had the right to know the sins committed; and as 
the power, unless exclusive, would have been idle, it 
was the duty of all to apply to them. The facts being 
peculiarly within the knowledge of the party committing 
the sins, it was his duty to state them. The power given 
to the apostles to do certain things, imposed upon the 
parties governed, the corresponding duty to obey the 
apostles in respect to those things. As all sins are but 
transgressions of the law, the Church has the right to 
know them for two reasons: i. Because her jurisdic- 
tion extends to all violations of the law she was left to 
execute; and her entire success and purity require this 
knowledge; 2. Because it is necessary for the safety of 
each individual member. 



THE SACRAMENT OE PENANCE 341 



Did these powers descend to the successors of the 
Apostles? 

I have endeavored to show, in another place, that 
Christ did create a permanent system; and for that 
reason, the provisions of His code were generally per- 
manent. In other words, the permanent provisions of 
any permanent code must constitute the general rule, 
while the temporary provisions would constitute the ex- 
ceptions. All the provisions of such a code are, there- 
fore, prima facie permanent; and the exceptions must 
be so marked, either by express words or by the nature 
of the power conferred or command given, as to show 
that they are temporary only. He who alleges excep- 
tions to a general rule, or to a prima facie case, must 
show them. This rule results from the plainest princi- 
ples of right reason. When we look into the Constitu- 
tion of the United States (which organized a permanent 
system of government in the contemplation of the theory 
itself), we find that there is not a single permanent pro- 
vision expressly marked, as such, while the temporary 
provisions are so marked. Where permanent powers are 
conferred, they are given without any limitation, as to 
time — as the power to collect taxes, borrow and coin 
money, regulate commerce, declare war, etc. But the 
temporary provisions are expressly marked, so as to be 
readily distinguished from the permanent features of 
this instrument; as, for example, in clause 3, section i, 
and in clause i, section 9, and in clause 2, section 3, of 
article i, and in article 5. It is much easier to expressly 
mark each of the few exceptions than to expressly mark 
each of the numerous cases coming under the general 
rule. 

It would seem clear that this rule is equally as applica- 



342 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



ble to the system of Christ as to that of any other law- 
giver. That He did organize a permanent system, is cer- 
tain; and that the great and overwhelming mass of the 
provisions of His code are permanent and component 
parts of this system of law, is equally certain. 

It is true : i. That the act of conferring these powers 
upon the apostles was a command to exercise them in 
proper cases ; 2. That the powers are such, in their very 
nature, as may come down, through the Church, to the 
end of time. 

In the commission, the apostles were expressly com- 
manded to teach all nations to observe all things whatso- 
ever they — the apostles — had been commanded to ob- 
serve. As I have elsewhere endeavored to show, this 
wide commission, by its very express terms, carried for- 
ward to the successors of the apostles, in their proper 
capacities, all the powers, promises, and duties incumbent 
on, or given to, the apostles themselves, except those 
marked as temporary, either in express words, or by the 
peculiar nature of the act to be performed. The apostles 
having been commanded to exercise these powers, and 
they, being permanent in their nature, and nowhere 
marked as temporary, must still reside in the Church, 
the permanent institution created by Christ Himself. 
Those who once concede that these powers were origi- 
nally conferred upon the apostles, will find it very diffi- 
cult to escape this conclusion; for if they can defeat the 
present existence of these powers in this case, they can, 
upon the same basis of reasoning, defeat all the powers 
of the Church, and the entire system itself. 

Let us inquire into the purposes for which these powers 
were originally delegated. They were certainly bestowed 
by our Lord for great and beneficial ends. It was not 
an idle display of words only. Far from it. What, then, 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



could these purposes be ? It could not have been a mere 
personal privilege given to the apostles alone. We can- 
not conceive of any practical ends to be accomplished 
by it, as such. Miracles were special gifts. This gift 
of miracles was given to the apostles individually, as 
proofs of their veracity as witnesses of the facts they 
saw, and of the discourses they heard. The words of 
Christ was the evidence of their commission as officers 
of the Church, in the same way that these same words 
will constitute the evidence of the authority of their suc- 
cessors to the end of time. 

But the power to remit, and the power to retain sins, 
were not required as proofs of the veracity of the apostles 
as witnesses, or of their being agents of Christ. For 
what purposes were these powers given? They were 
given for the safety of the Church, and of each individual 
member, as already stated in substance. What other 
purpose could our Lord have intended to accomplish? 
The exercise of these powers could constitute no proofs 
of the truth of Christianity; for the truth of the system 
had first to be conceded, before the exercise of these 
powers could be invoked by the individual. If he did 
not first beHeve in the exercise of these powers, he could 
not ask for their exercise. 

The very same reasons that induced our Lord to confer 
those powers upon the apostles at the beginning, would 
have induced Him to continue them in the Church to 
the end of time. That the actual and practical exercise 
of these powers was merciful and beneficial to the mem- 
bers of the Church, in the days of the apostles, must 
be conceded; for after all the suggestions of pride, and 
the cavils of prejudice, every humble Christian must con- 
cede, at last, that such an institution is beneficial. It 
may, then, be well asked, are we living under a crippled 



344 THE SACRAMENT OE PENANCE 



and mutilated code of law, which has lost some of its 
most beautiful and consolatory features? If the powers 
to forgive and retain sins, and the corresponding duty 
of confession, were confined to the apostolic day, how do 
we enjoy any benefits from the same? What good does 
it do us to know that the apostles did forgive sins — 
that the happy and favored Christians of that day did 
enjoy the blessed consolation of this certain and not mere 
inferential forgiveness? Could that have been the inten- 
tion of Christ ? Did He design His system to be perfect 
at the beginning and imperfect afterwards ? Did He in- 
tend to make this great dif¥erence among Christians? 
If so, why ? Is there any reason for it — any Scripture ? 
We are all living under the same dispensation. What 
was necessary then is necessary now. As witnesses the 
apostles left their testimony with the Church, and we 
enjoy the benefit of it at this day, as much as our breth- 
ren did in their day. If these great and important 
powers to remit and retain sins be taken away, we are, 
indeed, left in a state of destitution. This cannot be 
true. Either Christ never gave these powers, or they yet 
remain in the Church, and will continue there, with the 
other permanent powers, to the end of time. 

There are the best reasons for the practice of con- 
fession. Is not man a frail creature that needs discipline 
and aid at every step of his perilous journey through 
life? And yet can anything defiled enter heaven? The 
struggle for a seat in that happy abode, is a great strug- 
gle. The rewards are unspeakable in degree, and endless 
in duration. They are worth a life of humility and labor. 
And for these reasons man needs a test of his faith and 
practice at all times. His memory needs to be refreshed. 
He needs these tests while he has time to amend, if 
wrong. After death, it is too late. As the doctrine of 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



the Real Presence is a great test of faith in the truth of 
Christianity, so confession is a great test of virtuous prac- 
tice. The proud cannot submit to it. Christ knew this, 
and He never intended to reward the proud. He pro- 
nounced a sweet blessing upon the poor in spirit; but 
He had no blessing for the proud. Confession strikes 
a fatal blow at' pride. It humbles and corrects self-con- 
ceit. It is a great check upon self-delusion. 

There are some things that we can know with cer- 
tainty; and among them is the fact, that we did do a 
certain thing, and the motive with which we did it. 
These are facts within our own knowledge, and are 
of so plain a character, that we cannot be mistaken. 
There is no room for delusion. But when we come to 
make up our judgment as to the character of the act 
itself, then our self-love and our interest will be most 
apt to mislead us. If we confess to God alone, we have 
no-one to instruct us at to the character of the particular 
act, or to cross-examine us as to the circumstances at- 
tending the act itself. The whole work we do ourselves, 
and we do not know whether we are certainly forgiven or- 
not. 

In confession it is different in some material respects. 
The penitent not only gives a statement of all the acts 
he has committed, that he himself esteems sinful, but 
he is subjected to cross-examination, that powerful test 
of truth. Did the most honest witness ever state all the 
material facts he knew, without cross-examination? 
Such instances are exceedingly rare; not because the 
witness does not desire to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth; but because he cannot cor- 
rectly judge as to all that is material. He will almost 
certainly omit some circumstance of importance. When 

we are not only required to confess to God, but to man 
24 



346 THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



also, we have two checks instead of one. Besides this, 
there are many persons of the most pious dispositions, 
that are often afflicted with groundless scruples ; and 
these find a complete relief and correction in confession. 
As every one has the right to select his own confessor, 
he can have recourse to that one in whose discretion 
and judgment he has the greatest confidence. 

That God should select human agents to administer 
His law among men, is entirely consistent with the nature 
and purposes of His government. It was evidently the 
intent of our Lord to honor human nature. He died 
for it. He deemed it worthy to be trusted. His sys- 
tem, upon its face, shows the intimate union and mutual 
dependence that Christians should sustain to each other. 
His system is not based on universal suspicion. 

The objection, based upon considerations of delicacy, 
is one that is without any real foundation in reason or 
Scripture. 

.The criminal law of the land defines and punishes a 
great variety of offences, some of them of a very in- 
delicate character; and yet our courts of law are com- 
pelled to execute justice upon offenders openly by a 
public trial. No code of law could pass over these in- 
delicate offences without an abdication of justice, and the 
consequent increase of these very crimxs. 

The rights of the chur.ch, and the salvation of her chil- 
dren, cannot be sacrificed to motives of mere delicacy. 
In the pure and impartial eye of God, sins are obnoxious 
in proportion to their turpitude. It was to avoid the 
scandals of public confession, that secret sins are con- 
fessed as secret, and kept sacred by the proper officer. 
In this way, the Church and the individual members re- 
ceive the benefits flowing from the sacrament, while the 
injuries that might result from a public confession are 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



avoided. And one of the most powerful arguments in 
favor of confession is the fact, that a priest was never 
knoAvn wrongfully to reveal anything confided to him in 
the tribunal of penance. It does not matter whether 
he has subsequently become an Atheist, or even a crim- 
inal, his lips are sealed in eternal silence. 

Satisfaction. 

This is the third part of the Sacrament of Penance. 
The CathoHc Church holds that, while the guilt and 
* eternal punishment due to sin are remitted in repentance, 
confession and absolution, there yet remains some duty 
to be performed by the penitent. In the accurate lan- 
guage of Dr. Wiseman: 

" We believe that upon this forgiveness of sins — that 
is, after the remission of that eternal debt which God in 
His justice awards to transgression against His law — 
He has been pleased to reserve a certain degree of in- 
ferior or temporary punishment appropriate to the guilt 
which had been incurred; and it is on this part of the 
punishment alone that, according to the Catholic doctrine, 
satisfaction can be made to God," (Moorfield Lee, vol. 
2, 35.) 

If there be any free agency in man at all, so that he can 
obey or disobey the law of Christ at his own present 
election, then it follows necessarily, that he must volun- 
tarily co-operate, to some extent at least, with the assist- 
ing grace of God, in the work of his own salvation. The 
only question is as to the amount and extent of this co- 
operation. The Catholic theory requires more, the 
Protestant theory less. This is the essence of the dif- 
ference between the two theories, in reference to the 
remission of sins committed after baptism. If we can 
do anything at all in the great work of salvation, when 



348 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



aided by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (always 
freely given to those who rightly seek it), there can be 
nothing more natural and reasonable in itself than that 
we should suffer some temporal punishment for our sins, 
not only as a partial atonement, but also as a useful cor- 
rection of evil habits, and as evidence of a true re- 
pentance. 

When we look into the Old Testament, and see the 
uniform course pursued by God towards His servants, 
when transgressing His law, we find abundant examples. 
When our first parents had fallen, and were restored 
by repentance through the merits of the future Messiah, 
the Almighty inflicted temporary punishments upon them, 
and all their posterity ; and although the guilt of original 
transgression is remitted in baptism, we must all undergo 
the temporal punishments inflicted in the beginning. 
When Grod had put away the sin of David, Nathan said 
to him : " Because by this deed thou hast given great 
occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the 
child that is born unto thee shall surely die." (II Sam. 
xii, 14.) So, when the same King had sinned in num- 
bering the people, the Lord gave him, upon his re- 
penting, choice of one of three grievous temporal punish- 
ments. (II Sam. xxiv, 10-15.) So the Lord forgave 
the children of Israel in answer to the prayer of Moses, 
but at the same time declared that they should not see 
the land of promise. (Numbers xiv.) 

This same temporal punishment was inflicted upon 
Moses and Aaron after they had been forgiven. (Num- 
bers XX, 10, 29; Deut. xxxiv, 1-6.) Holy Job, when he 
had exceeded in speech, repented in dust and ashes. 
(Job xlii, 1-6.) The men of Nineveh, when the prophet 
had proclaimed their destruction, observed a general fast 
for three days, saying : " Who can tell if God will turn 



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE 



away from his fierce anger, and we perish not? " (Jonas 
ii, 9.). 

It is true that this infliction of temporal punishment 
after sins were forgiven, occurred under the old dis- 
pensation; but it is equally true, that they relied upon 
the same source of pardon as we ; namely : the blood of 
Christ. They looked forward and we look backward, 
to the same atonement for sin, both original and actual. 
There were many things in the old law, and especially 
those things which naturally flow from our relation to 
God, which are contained in the new. Those temporary 
enactments, which were but the result of positive legis- 
lation, and which were adapted to the then condition of 
things, are no doubt laid aside. But the infliction of 
temporal punishment for sin, flows from the permanent 
relation we bear to God under both systems ; and was not, 
therefore, repealed by the new law. 

We not only find no intimation in the New Testament 
opposed to the practice of penitential works, but we find 
very clear evidence that they were continued. Our 
Lord expressly says that His followers shall fast. (Matt, 
ix, 15.) And we find it was the constant practice of 
the apostles and others in their day. So, when our Lord 
reproached the then existing generation. He referred to 
the example of the men of Nineveh, not only without 
censure, but with evident approbation. (Matt, xii, 41.) 

The doctrine which is thus collected from the Word of 
God is reducible to these heads: i. That God, after 
the remission of sin, retains a lesser chastisement in His 
power, to be inflicted on the sinner. 2. That peniten- 
tial works, fasting, alms-deeds, contrite weeping, and 
fervent prayers, have the power of averting that punish- 
ment. 3. That this scheme of God's justice was not a 
part of the imperfect law, but the unvarying ordinance 



350 



PURGATORY 



of His dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and 
amply confirmed by Christ in the Gospel. 4. That it 
consequently becomes a part of all true repentance to 
try to satisfy this divine justice, by the voluntary as- 
sumption of such penitential works as His revealed truth 
assures us have efficacy before Him. 

The satisfaction already mentioned may be properly 
called prospective, because it is intended to avert that 
temporal punishment which has been reserved for the 
sinner. But there is a retrospective satisfaction of the 
most important character, without which there can be no 
remission of sins in the sacrament of penance. This 
consists in repairing so far as in our power, the injury 
we may have done to others. It is an essential act of 
justice towards an injured fellow-being that must be per- 
formed; otherwise the absolution granted will avail 
nothing. The stolen, or dishonestly obtained property, 
must be restored to its rightful owner ; and amends must 
be made to the person whose character and feelings have 
been injured by slander or detraction. 

Purgatory. 

The Council of Trent declared, as the faith of the 
Catholic Church, " that there is a purgatory, and that the 
souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the 
faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the 
altar," 

The doctrine of purgatory is most intimately connected 
with the doctrine of sacramental absolution and satis- 
faction, and legitimately springs from it. That there is 
a distinction in the guilt of different sins, must be con- 
ceded. All our criminal laws, and those of all nations, 
are founded upon this idea. To say that the smallest 
transgression, the result of inadvertence, is equal in 



PURGATORY 



351 



enormity to the greatest and most deliberate crime, is 
so utterly opposed to the nature of all law, and to the 
word of God, which assures us that men shall be pun- 
ished or rewarded according to their works, (Rom. ii, 
6.) as not to require any refutation. Our Lord assures 
us that men must give an account in the day of judg- 
ment for any idle word they speak; (Matt, xii, 36.) and 
St. John tells us that nothing defiled shall enter heaven, 
(Rev. xxi, 27.) Then St. John says there is a sin unto ~ 
death, and there is a sin which is not unto death; (I 
John v, 16;) and he also tells us that "all unrighteous- 
ness is sin ; and there is a sin not unto death." So we are 
told by the same apostle, that if we confess our sins, God 
is faithful and just to forgive us, (I John i, 9.) 

We must put all these texts together, and give them 
their full, harmonious, and consistent force. We must 
carry out the principles laid down to their fair and logical 
results. Suppose, then, a man speak an idle word, and 
die suddenly, before he has time to repent and confess 
his sin, will he be lost everlastingly? Must there not in 
the very nature of Christ's system be a middle state, 
wherein souls can be purged from their lesser sins ? Was 
not the great Dr. Johnson right when he said, speaking 
of the Catholic faith in reference to purgatory? 

" They are of opinion that the generality of mankind 
are neither so obstinately wicked as to deserve everlast- 
ing punishment, nor so good as to merit being admitted 
into the society of blessed spirits; and, therefore, that 
God is graciously pleased to allow of a middle state, 
where they may be purified by certain degrees of suf¥er- 
ing. You see, sir, there is nothing unreasonable in this." 
(Boswell's Life of Johnson.) And in reference to prayers 
for the dead, the Doctor also maintained, that " if it be 
once established that there are souls in purgatory, it is 



352 



PURGATORY 



as proper to pray for them, as for our brethren of man- 
kind, who are yet in this Hfe." 

It is clear that the practice of praying for the dead 
must rest upon the basis, that there is a middle state. It 
would be useless to pray for those in heaven, who needed 
no relief; and equally idle to pray for them who were 
beyond the reach of help. 

It is related in the twelfth chapter of Second Macabees, 
that the valiant Judas collected and sent 12,000 drachmas 
of silver to Jerusalem " for sacrifices to be offered for the 
sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concern- 
ing the resurrection. And because he considered that 
they who have fallen asleep with godliness had great 
grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and whole- 
some thought to pray for the dead, that they may be 
loosed from their sins." 

It has been settled by the Catholic Church that this 
book constitutes part of the canon of the Old Testament, 
while it is not admitted by Protestants. But all must 
concede that it is authentic history, and shows the faith 
of the Jewish Church, one hundred and fifty years before 
Christ. It is still the faith of the Jews. Our Lord, in 
his discourses to the Jews, knew what their belief was. 

That there is a distinction of sins and their punish- 
ments is clear from several texts besides those already 
referred to. (Matt, v, 22; Luke xii, 43-48; Matt, xxiii, 
23 ; xvi, 27.) 

There is a passage in one of St. Paul's Epistles that 
has always been held by the Church to relate to a middle 
state of purgation. The passage is this : 

" Now if any man build upon this foundation of gold, 
silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's 
work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare 



PURGATORY 



353 



it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall 
try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's 
work abide which he hath built thereon, he shall receive a 
reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall 
sufifer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by 
fire." (I Cor. iii, 12-15.) 

There is a great deal more expressed in this passage, 
than would at first appear. Suppose a man had built 
only gold, silver, or precious stones, or all together, then 
he would be entitled to a reward, without suffering any 
loss. But suppose he had built only wood, hay or stubble, 
or all these together, he would be entitled to no reward, 
and could not be saved. It is only in the case where the 
gold, silver, or precious stones have been intermixed with 
the wood, hay, or stubble, that the builder can be saved, 
while he suffers loss himself. The apostle does not say 
that the party escaping is himself tried by fire, but he 
escapes as if so tried — comparing the ordeal through 
which he himself must pass, to that of fire. If the 
apostle had not added the words : " but he himself shall 
be saved; yet so as by fire," we could only have con- 
cluded that he alluded to the test of the work alone. 
But these words show that he first alludes to the test 
of the work ; and, afterwards, to the ordeal through which 
the builder himself must pass, because of his having 
built such materials upon the foundation — Christ Jesus. 
To have intermixed such gross materials with those that 
were suitable for a foundation so precious, is a sin, for 
which the party must suffer loss, by being, for the. time, 
deprived of heaven, and undergoing the punishment of 
purgation. 

In reference to the testimony of the Ancient Fathers, 
I find the passages from their works bearing upon this 



354 



PURGATORY 



subject so well arranged by Dr. Wiseman, that I extract 
his quotations and remarks upon them entire. (Moor- 
field Lec. vol. ii, p. 50, sec. xi.) 

Now nothing can be more simple than to establish the 
belief of the universal Church on this point. The only 
difficulty is to select such passages as appear the clearest. 

I will begin with the very oldest Father of the Latin 
Church, TertulHan, who advises a widow ' to pray for 
the soul of her departed husband, entreating repose to 
him, and participation in the first resurrection, and mak- 
ing oblations for him on the anniversary day of his death, 
which, if she neglect, it may be truly said that she has 
divorced her husband.' (De Monogamia, c, 10.) " To 
make an oblation on the anniversary day of his death; 
to pray that he may have rest, — is not this more like 
our language and practice than those of any other re- 
ligion in England ? And does not Tertullian suppose that 
good is done to the faithful departed by such prayer? 
And, moreover, does he not prescribe it as a solemn duty, 
rather than recommend it as a lawful practice ? 

" St. Cyprian thus writes : ' Our predecessors pru- 
dently advised that no heathen, departing this life, should 
nominate any churchman his executor ; and should he do 
so, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice 
offered for his repose ; of which we have had a late ex- 
ample, where no oblation was made, nor prayer, in his 
name, offered in the Church.' It was considered, there- 
fore, a severe punishment that prayers and sacrifices 
should not be offered up for those who had violated any 
of the ecclesiastical laws. There are many other passages 
in this Father ; but I proceed to Origen, who wrote in the 
same century, and than whom no one can be clearer re- 
garding this doctrine : ' When we depart this Hf e, if 
we take with us virtues or vices, shall we receive reward 



PURGATORY 



355 



for our virtues, and shall those trespasses be forgiven 
to us which we knowingly committed? or shall we be 
punished for our faults, and not receive the reward of our 
virtues ? ' That is, if there be in our account a mixture 
of good and evil, shall we be rewarded for the good 
without any account being taken of the evil, or punished 
for the evil, without the good being taken into considera- 
tion ? This query he thus answers : ' Neither is true ; 
because we shall suffer for our sins, and receive the re- 
ward of our good actions. For if on the foundation of 
Christ you shall have built, not only gold, and silver, 
and precious stones, but also wood, and hay, and stubble, 
what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from 
the body ? Would you enter into heaven with your wood 
and hay and stubble, to defile the kingdom of our God? 
or, on account of those incumbrances, remain without and 
receive no reward for your gold, and silver, and precious 
stones? Neither is this just. It remains, then, that you 
be committed to the fire, which shall consume the light 
materials ; for our God, to those who can comprehend 
heavenly things, is called a consuming fire. But this fire 
consumes not that creature, but what the creature has 
himself built, — wood, and hay, and stubble. It is mani- 
fest, that, in the first place, the fire destroys the wood of 
our transgressions, and then returns to us the reward 
of our good works.' (Homil. xvi, al xii, in Jerem., T. 
iii, p. 231, 232.) Therefore, according to this learned 
Father, (two hundred years after Christ,) when the soul 
is separated from the body, if there be smaller transgres- 
sions, it is condemned to fire, which purges away those 
light materials, and thus prepares the soul for entering 
into heaven. 

St. Basil, or a contemporary author, writing on the 
words of Isaiah, ' Through the wrath of the Lord is 



356 



PURGATORY 



burned/ says that the things which are earthly shall be 
made the food of a punishing fire; to the end that the 
soul may receive favor and be benefited. 

" In the same century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus 
expresses himself : ' Thus (in the liturgy of the Church) 
we pray for the holy Fathers and the bishops that are 
dead; and, in short, for all those who departed this life 
in our communion ; believing that the souls of those for 
whom the prayers are offered, receive very great relief 
while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar.' 
(Catech. Mystag. v. n. ix. x., p. 328.) St. Gregory of 
Nyssa thus contrasts the course of God's providence in 
this world with that in the next. In the present Hfe, 
* God allows man to remain subject to what he himself 
has chosen; that, having tasted of the evil which he de- 
sired, and learned by experience how bad an exchange has 
been made, he might again feel an ardent wish to lay 
down the load of those vices and inclinations which are 
contrary to reason ; and thus, in this life, being renovated 
by prayers and the pursuit of wisdom, or, in the next, be- 
ing expiated by the purging fire, he might recover the 
state of happiness which he had lost. . . . When he 
has quitted his body, and the difference between virtue 
and vice is known, he can not be admitted to approach the 
Divinity till the purging fire shall have expiated the stains 
with which his soul was infected. That same fire in 
others will cancel the corruption of matter and the pro- 
pensity to evil.' (orat. de Defunctis, T. ii, 1066-S.) St. 
Ambrose, throughout his works has innumerable passages 
on this subject, and quotes St. Paul's Epistle to the 
Corinthians, (iii, 15.) which you have heard already cited 
by the other Fathers : ' If any man's works burn, he 
shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as 
by fire,' I will quote one passage out of many : ' But 



PURGATORY 



357 



he shall be saved, yet so as by fire/ He will be saved, 
the apostle said, because his substance shall remain, while 
his bad doctrine shall perish. Therefore he said, yet so 
as by fire; in order that his salvation be not understood 
to be without pain. He shows that he shall be saved 
indeed; but he shall undergo the pain of fire, and thus 
be purified ; not like the unbelieving and wicked man, 
who shall be punished in everlasting fire." (Comment, 
in I Ep. ad Cor., T. ii, in app., p. 122.) And in his 
funeral oration on the Emporer Theodosius he thus 
speaks : * Give O Lord, rest to thy servant Theodosius, 
that rest which Thou hast prepared for Thy Saints. May 
his soul thither tend whence it came, where it cannot 
feel the sting of death, where it will learn that death 
is the termination, not of nature, but of sin. I loved 
him, therefore I will follow him to the land of the living ; 
I will not leave him till, by my prayers and lamentations, 
he shall be admitted to the holy Mount of the Lord, to 
which his deserts call him.' 

St. Epiphanius, in the same century : There is 
nothing more opportune, nothing more to be admired, 
than the rite which directs the names of the dead to 
be mentioned. They are aided by the prayer which is 
offered for them, though it may not cancel all their faults. 
We mention both the just and sinners, in order that for 
the latter we may obtain mercy.' (Haer, Iv. sive Ixxv., 
T. i., p. 911.) St. Jerome: * As we beUeve the torments 
of the devil, and of those wicked men who said in their 
hearts there is no God, to be eternal; so, in regard to 
those sinners who have not denied their faith, and whose 
works will be proved and purged by fire, we conclude 
that the sentence of the judge will be tempered by mercy.' 
(Comment, in c. Ixv. Isai., T. ii, p. 492.) Not to be 
tedious I will quote one Father more, the great St. 



358 



INDULGENCES 



Augustine : ' The prayers of the Church,' he writes, ' or 
of good persons, are heard in favor of those Christians 
who departed this hfe, not so bad as to be deemed un- 
worthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to im- 
mediate happiness/ 

" These passages contain precisely the same doctrine 
as the Catholic Church teaches; and had I introduced 
them into my discourse without telling you from whom 
they are taken, no one would have supposed that I was 
swerving from the doctrine taught by our Church. It is 
impossible to imagine that the sentiments of these writers 
agreed, on this point, with that of any other religion." 

I will only add one extract to those given by the dis- 
tinguished lecturer. It is the language of St. Monica, 
the mother of the great Augustine, addressed to him by 
her while she was on her deathbed. " Lay," then she 
said, this body anywhere ; let not the care of it in any 
way disturb you : this only I request of you, that you 
would remember me at the altar of the Lord, wherever 
you be." (T. i., L. ix. Confess., n. 27, col. 285.) 

Indulgences. 

No doctrine of the Catholic Church has been more 
misunderstood, or more distorted, than the article con- 
cerning Indulgences. The best method of correcting 
these misapprehensions on the part of sincere persons, 
is to give a clear statement of the doctrine itself. In the 
first place, an indulgence has not the slightest reference 
to future sin, and is not, therefore, any license to com- 
mit it in any form. Nor is it a remission of either the 
eternal guilt of sin, or of the eternal punishment due 
to it. It is simply a remission, in whole or in part, of 
the temporary punishment deserved for sins committed 
after baptism, or a commutation of that punishment. 



INDULGENCES 



359 



In the Catholic theory, as we have seen, the interior 
or eternal guilt of sin, and the eternal punishment due to 
it, are both remitted by contrition, confession, and absolu- 
tion, except in that class of cases wherein we have injured 
our neighbor, and wherein a further act — an act of just 
reparation — must be performed before the remission of 
the eternal guilt and punishment becomes complete. 
After the eternal guilt and punishment of sin have been 
remitted in the sacrament of penance, God has reserved 
a certain degree of mere temporary punishment, propor- 
tioned to the offence. The object of this temporary pun- 
ishment is to make a partial atonement for the sin com- 
mitted, to correct the evil habit, and to give evidence 
of a true repentance. The power to relax this temporary 
punishment, or to substitute another for it, as after- 
circumstances may justly require, is the power to grant 
an indulgence. 

The power to grant indulgences is but a legitimate 
consequence resulting from the powers to bind and loose, 
to remit and retain sins, originally conferred by Christ 
upon the Church. These powers necessarily include the 
power and duty to determine the character of the par- 
ticular sin committed after baptism, and the weight of 
the circumstances attending it, and to assess the amount, 
and designate the kind, of the temporary punishment 
named by the law of God. It is strictly a judicial power, 
applying the existing law to the facts and circumstances 
of each particular case. If this right and duty of the 
Church be conceded, then the right to mitigate this .pun- 
ishment, or to substitute another for it, as subsequent 
circumstances may justly require, must belong to the 
power that originally imposed this temporary punish- 
ment. It will be seen at once by the calm and sensible 
reader, that, in the contemplation of the Catholic theory, 



36o 



INDULGENCES 



the granting of an indulgence cannot affect, in any way, 
the eternal condition of the party to whom it is granted, 
but only his temporary condition. 

This power of pardon or commutation after conviction 
and sentence, is retained by all civil governments. The 
exercise of it depends upon subsequent circumstances, 
unforeseen at the time the punishment was assessed. The 
object of criminal punishment is expiatory, preventive, 
and reformatory. The good conduct of the criminal dur- 
ing his imprisonment, may constitute strong evidence of 
a real reformation. It often happens that the executive 
of a state will pardon the convict at such a time as to 
remit the punishment in part only. It is not uncommon 
for pardon to be granted upon conditions, or only a few 
days before the expiration of the term of imprisonment 
fixed by the sentence, so as to restore the prisoner to 
the rights of citizenship. 

The temporary punishment for sins inflicted by the 
ancient Church, consisted in abstaining from all amuse- 
ments, giving the time of the sinner to prayer and good 
works, rigorous fasting, other penitential exercises, for 
and during a period of time proportioned to the nature 
of the offence. Sometimes this penance only lasted a few 
days, sometimes for several years, and in very extreme 
cases during life. 

One of the means of procuring this mitigation of the 
temporal punishment inflicted, was the recommendation 
of the holy martyrs, given on the eve of their martyrdom. 

I have included Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences 
in one chapter, because they constitute, in fact, but por- 
tions of one subject. The limits of my work have not 
allowed me to notice more than the main points ; and I 
must refer the reader, who desires more full and de- 
tailed information, to the Moorfield Lectures of Dr. Wise- 



INDULGENCES 



361 



man, who has treated these different heads with great 
fulness and the most masterly ability. I will conclude 
this chapter with his summary of the grounds upon which 
the doctrine of Indulgences rests : 

" From all I have said, you will easily conclude that 
our indulgence, and that of the ancient Church, rest up- 
on the following grounds : First, that satisfaction has 
to be made to God for sin remitted, under the authority 
and regulation of the Church. 2d. That the Church 
has always considered herself possessed of the authority 
to mitigate by diminution or commutation, the penance 
which she enjoined; and that she has already reckoned 
such a mitigation valid before God, who sanctions and 
accepts it. 3d. That the sufferings of the saints, in union 
with, and by virtue of Christ's merits, are considered 
available towards the granting of this mitigation. 4th. 
That such mitigations, when prudently and justly granted, 
are conducive towards the spiritual weal and profit of 
Christians." 



25 



CHAPTER XIII 



OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS ; THEIR RELICS 
AND IMAGES 

The invocation of saints. 

In reference to the doctrine of the Catholic Church 
concerning the Invocation of Saints, the Council of Trent 
declares : 

. . . that the saints who reigned with Christ, offer 
up to God their prayers for men, that it is good and 
profitable, suppliantly to invoke them, and to fly to their 
prayers, help, and assistance, for the obtaining of benefits 
from God through His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, who 
is alone our Redeemer and Saviour." (Sess. xxv.) 

It will be seen that this language is very clear and dis- 
tinct. That matters affirmed are simply these: I. That 
the saints in glory offer up prayers for us. 2. That it 
is good and profitable to invoke them. 3. That this is 
done for the obtaining of benefits from God through His 
Son, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. By this 
decree it is not declared to be essential, but only good 
and profitable, to invoke the prayers of the saints in 
glory. It will also be observed, that the Giver of all the 
benefits asked for, is God Himself, who bestows them, 
in and through the merits of Christ ; and that the saints 
who pray for us, are regarded simply as inferior petition- 
ers, in behalf of their own brethren. 

The Apostles' Creed, conceded by most Protestants to 
362 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 363 



contain true doctrine, it is said : " I believe in the com- 
munion of saints." What is meant by this communion 
of saints? 

When we concede that our Lord was a Divine Law- 
giver, and that He organized a visible Church, we con- 
cede that this Church must be a continuing corporation. 
It is an artificial person, composed of all the members 
belonging to it in every age and nation. These members 
or corporators, in the contemplation of the theory never 
die. They change their state; but they, in fact, die not. 
They quit earth, and reach heaven ; but they still live on. 
As never-dying members of one great corporate body, 
they are each and all interested in the success of the 
corporation ; and as the aggregate rightful success of the 
whole is made up of the rightful success of each mem- 
ber, they are all interested in the welfare of each, and 
are thus all constituted " members one of another," as 
St. Paul says. 

This apostle in the fourth chapter of Ephesians, and 
twelfth of first Corinthians, gives us the clearest state- 
ment. He therein calls the entire Church the body of 
Christ; and says that our Lord gave certain orders to 
the Church. And these different orders were given by 
Christ to the entire Church, not alone to the Church of 
the apostolic day. And as every member of the natural 
body must sympathize with every other ; so, every mem- 
ber of this corporate body — the church — must equally 
sympathize with all the others. And as all the saints 
are immortal members of the same enduring corporation, 
and are each and all interested in the spiritual welfare 
of each and of the whole combined, they can assist each 
other ; and this sweet relationship is fitly termed " the 
communion of saints." 

That there is a connecting chain of sympathy and good 



364 THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 



offices between the suffering saints on earth and their own 
brethren in heaven would seem to follow, not only from 
the very nature and purposes of the system of Christ, 
but from many facts expressly stated in the Scripture. 
(Matt, xxii, 30; xviii, 10; Heb. i, 14; Luke xv, 7-10; 
Apoc. viii, 3-4.) 

In reference to these Dr. Wiseman says: 
" From all this it is proved that the saints and angels 
know what passes on earth — that they are aware of 
what we do and suffer; otherwise they could not rejoice 
in any good that we do, nor resent any misfortune that be- 
falls us. In the second place, we have it sufficiently 
proved that the saints do more than barely know and 
interest themselves about us, for they actually present 
our prayers to God and intercede in our behalf with Him. 
Here, then, is a basis, and a sufficient one, for the Catholic 
belief, — such a basis as surely should give rise to some 
doctrine or other in the true reHgion. Where is this 
doctrine to be found in those religious systems which 
reject and exclude all intercession of the saints, all inter- 
course between those on earth and their brethren in bliss ? 
Assuredly these texts prove something. For if all con- 
tained in the Word of God is true, and must form a rule 
of faith, such clear testimony as this regarding the con- 
nection between mankind and the blessed, must form the 
subject of a doctrine. Where, then, is this found? No- 
where but in the Catholic belief, — that prayers are 
offered for us by the saints, and that, therefore, we may 
apply to them for their supplications." (Moorfield Lee, 
vol. ii, 87.) 

The moment we concede the existence of God and His 
superintending care over us, that moment it becomes 
as natural for us to pray as to breathe. And it is just 
as natural to pray for those we love as it is to pray for 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 



365 



ourselves. And by the law of Christ, it is our express 
duty to pray for even those who persecute us. (Matt. 
V, 44-) 

In the last chapter of the Book of Job, the Lord di- 
rected Eliphaz to procure the prayers of his holy servant, 
saying : " My servant Job shall pray for you : for him 
will I accept." ]\Ioses often prayed for the chosen of 
Israel, and averted, by his prayers, the threatened wrath 
of God. In the New Testament it is shown to have been 
the universal practice for the saints to pray for one 
another, and that St. Paul constantly prayed for his 
brethren and often asked their prayers for himself. And 
St. James tells us that " the effectual fervent prayer of 
a righteous man availeth much." (James v, 16.) This 
he says with reference to prayers for others. So plainly 
is this principle established, that all professed Christians 
pray for each other. 

This duty and utility of prayer must rest upon some 
great principle. As the practice is not an idle one, it 
must have its foundation in some great fundamental 
truth. It must rest upon the intimate connection be- 
tween the seen and the unseen world — between the gov- 
erning creator and the governed creature — upon the 
never-ceasing power and disposition of God to grant us 
favors, at all times, when we need and properly ask 
for them. And our duty to pray for each other arises 
from our natural relationship, and the duty we owe to our 
Lord, who desires alike the salvation of all men. Are 
we not all brethren? Are we not bound to extend our 
Master's Kingdom by every just means? Is not this 
right ? 

If, then, a saint, while on earth, can aid his brethren 
by his prayers, upon what principle can we say that his 
power for good ceases, when the same saint gets to 



366 THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 



heaven? Can he not still make known his wishes to 
God? And has not the Almighty still the same power 
and disposition to hear the devout and humble petitions 
of His servants? Did the ardent Paul and the intrepid 
old Peter cease to love their brethren the moment they 
reached heaven ? Are we not assured that faith and hope 
are swallowed up in absolute certainty in that blissful 
abode, while charity, the ever-beautiful, still lives on? 
And is not this sweet virtue called the greatest, because 
everlasting? Who can believe that the saints in glory 
forget to love their suffering brethren on earth? Is not 
such a theory one of the driest and most withering in 
the universe, and well suited, in its very nature, to the 
coldest heart and the most perverted understanding? 

If the saints in glory love us, this love must be active 
and efifectual. Of what value is a love that never does 
any good for the object beloved? Did our Creator im- 
plant in our hearts and souls the desire of immortaHty, 
without any intention to gratify so beautiful and so 
natural a wish? And will our Lord permit the saints 
in glory to love us, and of course ardently to desire our 
good, and yet not permit this holy love to do us any 
service? Why is this holy love and desire permitted to 
exist, if not for practical exercise? Are there no sweet 
prayers offered in heaven? Have the saints in glory no 
wishes to gratify, no favors to ask for their brethren in 
this tempting world ? Who can believe that they love us 
not ? And if they love us who can believe that they never 
pray for us? — that while they love us they are still in- 
different as to our condition? — that if they do desire 
our good, they still dare not make these desires known? 
That if they do make them known, that still God will 
not gratify them, in proper cases? If the saints in glory 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 367 



love us, and aid us, in what way can they help us more 
effectually than by praying for us, as they did while still 
on earth? What sort of a communion of saints is that 
which is limited alone to this poor earth? What would 
Christianity itself be worth if it did not look beyond the 
grave ? 

If it be true that the saints in heaven love us, that this 
love is active and efficient, and not merely passive and 
idle; and, therefore, that they can and do pray for us, 
surely it can be no wrong in us to ask their prayers, to 
fly to their help and assistance. To ask of our own 
brethren — the copartners of our joys and sorrows — to 
grant us a favor that they love to grant, and that affords 
them pleasure to perform, cannot be justly held to be 
erroneous. It would be a strange philosophy, and a still 
more singular theology, that would make it a crime to 
ask of a brother that which he had the power and the 
disposition to give ; and which, in itself, was " good and 
profitable " to us, and no loss to him. 

In fact, the objection to the invocation of saints, when 
calmly and thoroughly considered, resolves itself, at last, 
into an objection against the duty and utility of all 
prayer. For it would seem to be clear, that if we can 
pray for ourselves we can pray for others; that if our 
prayers can be effectual in the one case, they can in the 
other.; that if we can pray for our brethren while we are 
in this state of being, we can still do so in the next." 

Is it true that, because the saints can know that we 
invoke their prayers, they must possess the " divine at- 
tribute of universal presence " ? How do the saints know 
that a sinner on earth does penance ? Or do they rejoice 
without this knowledge? If they can and do know this 
fact, upon what semblance of reason can we say that they 



368 THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 



cannot know when their brethren invoke their prayers? 
Is not the one fact as easily known to them as the other ? 
The fact is certain that there is joy in heaven over one 
sinner doing penance. The fact is also certain that the 
guardian angels spoken of by our Lord " always behold 
the face of the Father," and that those angels do know 
when we offend against those little ones placed under 
their charge. God is able, instantaneously, to reveal to 
the saints in glory every fact that occurs on earth. Un- 
less we deny the existence of this almighty power, we 
must concede the entire futility of this objection. 

It was objected that this doctrine is inconsistent with 
the sole mediatorial power of Christ. St. Paul says: 
" There is one Mediator between God and man, the man 
Christ Jesus." (I Tim. ii, 5.) 

A mediator must always be the equal of both the 
parties between whom he interposes. One sovereign in- 
dependent state can interpose as a mediator between other, 
sovereign independent states ; but individuals, as such, 
however distinguished, would never be permitted by 
sovereign states to mediate between them, because not 
their equals. For this reason it was necessary that Christ 
should be both God and man, that He might be the 
Mediator between two of His equals. Whatever is said 
by a mediator is addressed by him to both the parties, 
and as the equal and friend of both. 

The position of the saint who prays for his brethren, 
is totally different from that of a mediator. The saint 
is only the equal of one of the parties, and his prayer is 
solely addressed to the other. He assumes not the posi- 
tion of a mediator, but that of an inferior petitioner for 
favors for his own friend and equal. 

The charge of idolatry which has often been recklessly 
made by some Protestant writers, but which has been 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS 369 



abandoned by the more candid Protestant controvertists, 
is one requiring very little notice. 

The Catholic doctrine has been misunderstood, in some 
instances, by not observing that the word worship has 
several different meanings. In King James' translation 
it is used in different senses. Thus in Luke xiv, 10, it is 
used to express the lowest degree of respect. When 
used by CathoHc writers in reference to the honor due 
to the saints and their relics, it is used in its subordinate 
sense. Worship, like love, may be given to different 
objects, in different degrees. When the lawyer asked 
Christ which was the greatest commandment. He 
answered : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
mind." By this our Lord did not mean to exclude all 
love of others, but only required for God our supreme 
► love ; for He immediately adds : " Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." (Matt, xxii, 35-39.) As God re- 
quires our supreme love, so He requires our supreme 
worship; and as He does not prohibit us from loving 
others, while we love Him supremely, so He does not 
inhibit that inferior respect we pay to His saints, while 
we give to Him and to Him only, the supreme homage 
of our souls. The two are entirely compatible with each 
other ; and no more conflict than do the powers of a sub- 
ordinate with those of his superior. And those who con- 
fuse the two, and refuse to distinguish between them, and 
upon that false basis say, that God is injured by this 
subordinate respect paid to His holy servants, simply 
because they were such, are about as much mistaken as 
the man who abandoned his faithful wife, for the sole 
reason that she loved her mother. He could not see how 
his wife could love her mother and at the same time love 
him. 



THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 



The Blessed Virgin Mary. 

"Virgin and mother of our dear Redeemer! 

All hearts are touched and softened at her name; 

Alike the bandit with the bloody hand, 

The priest, the prince, the scholar and the peasant, 

The man of deeds, the visionary dreamer, 

Pay homage to her as one ever-present . . . 

So mild, so merciful, so strong, so good, 

So patient, peaceful, loyal, loving, pure. 

This were enough to prove it higher and truer 

Than all the creeds the world had known before." 

— Longfellow. 

In the Letters Apostolic, issued by Pope Pius the 
Ninth, in December, 1854, making a dogmatic definition 
of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary, and which has given so much satis- 
faction to the entire Catholic world, it is declared : " that 
the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at 
the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege 
and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits 
of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved 
free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by 
God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be be- 
lieved by all the faithful." 

The hasty objection that this doctrine did not exist in 
the Church until it was defined, is thus met by Dr. 
Bryant, in his late beautiful work upon the Immaculate 
Conception : 

" There be some, who absurdly afifirm of any given 
doctrine, that it did not exist before such and such a 
period, the date at which it was solemnly defined. The 
fallacy of such an assertion is sufiiciently exposed by the 
following. The canon of the Sacred Scriptures was not 
defined until the time of the Council of Hippo in the 
fourth Century. Therefore, according to these men, the 



THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 371 

Sacred Scriptures did not exist until then. Apply this 
rule to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and 
to every other, and words need not be multiplied or 
wasted in vindication of the Church in every case." 
(Preface, xiv.) 

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the re- 
sult which necessarily flows from facts and principles 
plainly laid down in Scripture. It is but a true judicial 
extension of those principles. 

When our first parents had fallen, the Lord declared 
that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
head. Eve, by whose act original sin was introduced, 
was created sinless, anci it was fit, in the nature of God's 
system of redemption, that Mary, the second Eve, should 
also be created sinless. John the Baptist was filled with 
the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb; and 
Jeremias, the. plaintive prophet, was sanctified before he 
was born. (Luke i; Jer. i, 5.) Whenever God created 
an agent to accomplish some great purpose, He always 
bestowed upon the person the necessary grace and power. 
And these were always duly proportioned to the magni- 
tude of the end to be attained. When, therefore. Infinite 
Purity was about to be united with the human, and to 
choose for himself a mother, He would necessarily make 
a fit habitation for Himself. That He had the power^ 
no one will question. Who," asks St. Cyril, " hath 
ever heard of an architect building for himself a house, 
and yielding the occupancy and possession of it to his 
prime enemy ? " And it has been well said by a learned 
writer : — 

" It is not permitted to other children to select a 
mother according to their good pleasure ; but if this were 
ever granted to any one, who would choose a slave for 
his mother, when he might have a queen? Who a 



372 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 



peasant, when he might have a noble? Who an enemy 
of God, when he might have a friend of God? If, then, 
the Son of God alone could select a mother, according 
to His pleasure, it must be considered as certain that He 
would choose one befitting a God." 

St. Bernard expresses the same sentiment when he 
says : " The Creator of men, to be born of man, must 
choose such a mother for Himself as He knew to be most 
fit." And it was well said by an ancient Heathen writer : 
"Whenever you introduce a God, let Him act like a 
God." And the eloquent Bryant very appropriately asks : 
" Could it be otherwise, then, that a pure and holy God 
would choose other than a pure and holy mother? He 
knew not sin Himself, and in order to take of her flesh. 
He must have created her without sin also." (The Im- 
maculate Conception, a Dogma, 63.) 

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, he said: 
" Hail full of grace," according to the Douay Bible ; and 
" Hail thou that art highly favored," as the translation 
of King James has it. 

There are many instances given in the Old and New 
Testaments, where angels appeared to men; but this is 
the only case in which one of those blessed spirits ever* 
saluted a human being in this form. This is a deeply 
significant fact. When Christ was arrayed in the purple 
robe, the soldiers said to Him in mockery : Hail King 
of the Jews." After the resurrection of our Lord, He 
saluted the occasion by the expression " All hail." But 
there is no instance mentioned in Scripture where the 
form of salutation used by Gabriel was ever employed by 
a superior when addressing an inferior. When the same 
angel appeared to Zacharias, he simply called him by his 
name. The salutation " hail " was a form employed by 
an inferior when addressing a superior. And this is the 



THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 373 

reason why that lowly maid — the humblest of the humble 
— " was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what 
manner of salutation this should be." Observe that she 
was affected by the manner of the salutation. The angel 
had not then announced the object of his visit. Her per- 
fect humility was shocked, because an angel from heaven 
had addressed her in that manner. 

If, then, the Blessed Virgin was superior to the angel 
sent to her, is it not certain that she must have been sin- 
less at every period of her existence? 

The objection that Mary could not have been sinless 
in her conception, because the apostle Paul says in Adam 
all die, is not applicable to her case, for the reason, that 
she was one of the instruments employed by God in his 
great plan of redemption — that she was the blessed 
among women — and her case was an exception to the 
general rule. It is conceded by all that Christ was per- 
fect man, and by those who believe in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, that He was also perfect God; and yet it 
is admitted that He was free from original sin. He 
could be perfect man without bearing the taint of original 
transgression. So could Mary, through the grace of God. 

It has also been said by some Protestant writers, and 
is a very common objection to be found in sermons, that 
our Lord treated His mother harshly, especially at the 
wedding in Cana of GaHlee. (John ii.) Before the truth 
of such a charge should be believed, it should very plainly 
appear. 

It is true, that such an inference might be drawn from 
a hasty examination of the language of our Lord on that 
occasion. But when we observe his general mode of ad- 
dressing His mother, we can see that it was usual with 
Him to call her simply, woman. This expression he used 
when hanging on the Cross. He said to Her, " Woman, 



374 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 



behold thy son." Bloomfield, the distinguished Protestant 
Commentator, very justly says: 

" This word was a form of address which implied 
nothing of disrespect, and was employed by our Lord on 
the most alf ecting of all occasions, and when He especially 
evinced His exquisite sympathy and tender regard for 
this very parent. This being the case it is scarcely neces- 
sary to advert to the classical authorities which have 
been produced, from Homer to Dio Cassius, in proof of 
the above position." (Cited in note to Kendrick's trans- 
lation.) 

The great St. Augustine gives one of the true mean- 
ings : " The mother demanded a miracle ; but He, in 
divine operations, does not recognize maternal authority, 
and says, as it were, thou didst not bring forth my 
wonder-working power: thou art not the mother of my 
divinity." " When it is remembered that our Lord was 
subject to His parents, and that His time had not then 
arrived, we can see that He had two objects to accom- 
plish by what He said: i. By the question He asked, 
He intended to inform His mother that He could not be 
subject to her in divine things. 2. By the statement, 
" Mine hour is not yet come," He intended to let her 
know that He would perform the miracle, even before 
His time, at her request. The purpose of our Lord was 
to place Himself right before His mother, so that she 
would know the true ground upon which He performed 
the miracle before His time had come. The very fact 
that she at once said to the servants, " Whatsoever He 
saith unto you, do it," shov/s conclusively that she under- 
stood Him to promise a compliance with her wish. So 
far from 4he conduct and language of Christ on this 
occasion, when taken and considered together, showing 



THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 



any harsh treatment of His mother, they show precisely 
the contrary. It would have been very strange that our 
Lord should have been harsh to His mother." 

The expression, " Mother of God,'' as appHed to the 
Blessed Virgin by Catholic writers, and especially by the 
ancient Fathers, as will be seen, and as found in Catholic 
books of Devotion, does not mean what many Protestants 
may suppose. As we have just seen by the extract of 
St Augustine, the Catholic Church does not hold that 
our Lord derived His divine nature, but only His flesh 
from His mother. In the Christian theory, the soul of 
each human being is created by God from nothing, and 
is united to the body before birth ; and yet the mother is 
said to be the mother of the compound being called man, 
although he derived but one part of his being from his 
parents. It is the Catholic faith, that while our Lord did 
not derive His divinity from his mother, the two natures, 
human and divine, were united in him before His birth. 
And this is all that is meant when we say that Mary was 
the mother of God. It is not intended to convey the idea, 
by this expression, that God did not exist prior to, and 
independent of her. He was her Creator — she, His 
creature. 

The ancient Liturgies, being public and established 
forms of divine worship, constitute satisfactory evidence 
of the faith of the early Church in regard to the Blessed 
Virgin. 

I. The Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, as it is called, 
is certainly very ancient, if it was not composed by him. 
This Liturgy is quoted by St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, A. D. 
347. This is the one in most common use among the 
Orientals. In this the Blessed Virgin is called " Most 
holy, most glorious, immaculate Mother of God, and ever 



376 THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 



Virgin." It also adds the very marked expression, " In 
every respect out of the range of sinful men." 

2. In the Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist : " Most 
holy, immaculate, and blessed Mother of God, and ever 
Virgin Mary." 

3. In that of St. John Chrysostom : In every part 
wholly, altogether untainted." 

4. In that of St. Basil : " Chiefly with the most holy, 
spotless, above all blessed, our glorious Lady, Mother of 
God, and ever Virgin Mary." 

5. In the Alexandrian : But chiefly of our most holy, 
most glorious, immaculate, most blessed Lady, Mother of 
God, and ever Virgin Mary." 

6. In the Roman Liturgy of undoubted antiquity: 
Most glorious, most holy, immaculate Mother of God, 

and ever Virgin Mary." 

In the second century, St. Justin Martyr calls her the 
Mediatrix between God her Divine Son, and our fallen 
race ; and St. Irenaeus, of the same age, says of her : " If 
Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was counselled to obey 
God; that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate 
of the Virgin Eve. And as the human race was bound to 
death through a virgin, it is saved through a virgin; the 
scales being equally balanced; virginal disobedience by 
virginal obedience." (Advers. Haeres., lib. v, cap. xix, 
p. 879.) 

In the third century, St. Hippolytus calls her " Holy 
and Immaculate," and Origen says : " She has not been 
tainted with the breath of the venomous serpent." 

In the fourth age St. Ephraim says : " Mary is im- 
maculate, and most remote from every taint of sin." 

I have passed over many of the passages quoted by 
Dr. Bryant, and must refer to the work itself for the 
others. 



RELICS AND IMAGES 



377 



Relics and Images. 

In reference to the relics of the saints, the Council of 
Trent declared: 

" That the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others 
now living with Christ, which were the living members 
of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, by Him to be 
raised up, and glorified, unto everlasting life, are to be 
venerated by the faithful, through which many benefits 
are bestowed on men by God; so that they who affirm 
that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the 
saints, or that such relics and other sacred monuments 
are uselessly honored by the faithful, and that the places 
dedicated to their memories are in vain visited for the 
sake of impetrating their aid — are absolutely to be con- 
demned, as the Church has long since condemned, and 
now also condemns them." (Sess. xxv.) 

And in reference to the pictures and images of the 
saints, the same council decreed : 

" That the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of 
God, and of other saints, are to be had and retained 
especially in Churches, and that due honor and veneration 
are to be shown them; not that it is believed that any 
divinity or virtue is inherent in them, on account of which 
they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked 
of them, or that trust is to be placed in images, as of old 
was done by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols ; 
but because the honor which is shown them is referred 
to the prototypes which they represent; so that through 
the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover 
our heads, and fall down, we may adore Christ, and 
venerate the saints^ whose likeness they bear." (Sess. 
xxv.) 

It is just as natural to respect the relics and images 
26 



378 



RELICS AND IMAGES 



of those we love, as to love the objects themselves. In 
fact, the love of the relics and images of the great and 
good is but the inevitable result of the love we bear the 
objects to whom these appertain. If the sincere believer 
loves anything, it must be the subhme system of Chris- 
tianity itself ; and if he loves the cause, he must love those 
who have done most to advance it. If there be in the 
mind and heart of the true believer any human object 
most worthy of his love, it is the holy martyr for the 
cause of Christ. And after all the frivolous and unfeel- 
ing objections that have been, or may yet be urged against 
an impulse so natural and innocent, the human heart will 
still tell us that it is just and right in itself. The heart 
is as often right as the head. The heart of Daniel Web- 
ster, in opposition to the doubts of his head, assured him 
that the glowing sermon of Christ on the Mount was not 
the production of man; and happy would he have been 
had he followed this holy impulse of his heart, which was 
as true as instinct itself. It is useless and vain coldly to 
argue against the simplest and sweetest impulses of the 
soul, as if we wished to banish from the heart all sym- 
pathy for the good and great. 

Is the love of the humble and true Christian for his 
brethren a sin or a virtue ? In that last and most mourn- 
ful discourse delivered by the meek Saviour, just before 
His passion, He said to His disciples : 

" A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love 
one another ; as I have loved you, that ye also love one 
another." And so important did our Lord consider this 
new commandment, that He repeated it three several 
times, in the same discourse. Should our love cease the 
moment the holy brother dies? 

If we are bound to love the great and noble cham- 
pions of the cross, are we not bound to keep this love 



RELICS AND IMAGES 



379 



ever " green in our souls ? " And if so, are we not 
allowed to use the means best adapted to that end? 
Strange, if we are not. The honors paid to St. Paul 
and St. Peter, in their day, we may certainly pay to 
their memory now. And we may surely use any innocent 
means in doing this. 

Pictures and images of Christ, of Mary, of the apostles, 
and of the martyrs, are intended simply to excite de- 
votion by bringing up before the mind a more concen- 
trated and lively history of the persons and scenes repre- 
sented. Prose, poetry, and painting, are only signs or 
mediums of thought and fact. These different modes 
of representation have each their peculiar advantages. 
It is by a combination of them all that the best repre- 
sentation can be had in many cases. For this reason 
we see works of art and science, as well as of biography, 
constantly illustrated by drawings, plans, and pictures. 
By the use of prose a more exact and full description 
can be given, while that of poetry is more vivid, and 
that of painting more touching. When we look upon an 
image or painting of the crucifixion, it at once brings to 
our recollection, by the power of the association of ideas, 
all the remembered incidents of our Lord's passion. The 
word cross is but a sign, and only brings up the same 
emotions as the image or picture of the same thing rep- 
resented. 

In the Old Testament we are told that the dead man 
was instantly restored to life when he touched the bones 
of the prophet. (II Kings xiii, 21.) So, we are assured 
that miracles were wrought by handkerchiefs and aprons 
from the body of St. Paul. (Acts xix, 11, 12.) We 
are also told that the shadow of St. Peter and the hem 
of our Lord's garment had this effect. (Matt, xix, 20; 
Acts V, 15.) From these examples we see that God, 



38o 



RELICS AND IMAGES 



of old, did make use of such means to show His power 
and love, and He certainly may do so now. 

That the Catholic doctrine was the universal doctrine 
of the Church in the very first ages of Christianity, there 
would seem to be no doubt. The fact is certain, that 
angels are ministering spirits, as St. Paul says, and that 
the saints in glory are as the angels, as we are told by 
Christ; and as the angels are such ministering spirits, 
it is very strange that they cannot aid us by their prayers, 
while this assistance can be given us by our brethren on 
earth. What substantial difference there can be between 
the principle of the two cases, it is difficult to perceive. 



CHAPTER XIV 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 

General misrepresentation of Catholic doctrines. 

That fair and candid controvertists may often miscon- 
ceive each other's meaning, is not surprising. This arises 
from the general poverty, and uncertain character, of 
language, and often from a want of certainty and clear- 
ness in the statement of a position. Writers, who have 
confused conceptions of the subject they discuss, or of the 
positions they lay down, will necessarily use confused 
language. In quoting from an author, who did not un- 
derstand distinctly what he intended to state, or who 
uses inappropriate and loose language, it may be very 
difficult to avoid the appearance of unfairness. Quota- 
tions must have their practical limits ; and it is not always 
easy to know, in every case, where these limits are to be 
found. So much of an author should be quoted as to 
show his true position in reference to the single point 
regarding which quotation is made. If I quote an author 
for a given purpose, I need only quote so much as that 
purpose fairly requires. Every writer upon moral and 
philosophical subjects must have learned the practical dif- 
ficulty of sometimes apprehending the true meaning of 
an author, and of representing him correctly. Mistakes 
of this kind are to be anticipated, to a certain extent. It 
must also be conceded, that the fairest and most impartial 
writers are sometimes improperly accused of unfairness. 

381 



382 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



But after making every fair and just allowance for the 
general poverty and uncertainty of language, and the 
natural frailty of the human mind, I am compelled to 
-say, that in all my reading and observation, I have never 
met with the same amount of gross, bitter, and continued 
misrepresentation, as I have found on the part of Protes- 
tant controvertists, when writing upon the subject of the 
Catholic faith. That I am correct upon this subject, and 
in this opinion, can readily be seen by any calm, careful, 
and diligent reader, who will take the authors on both 
sides, and fairly compare them together. 

So strong is that feeling of violence and prejudice that 
even in theological dictionaries and other works, whose 
professed purpose is historically to state the true tenets 
of different bodies of professed Christians, we can very 
seldom find anything like a fair statement of the Catholic 
faith. The only theological dictionary compiled by a 
Protestant that did give a fair and just statement of the 
Catholic faith, so far as my examination has gone, was 
one by an English author, the just and impartial Bellamy. 
The Oxford Tracts also give generally a fair representa- 
tion of the particular tenets of the Catholic Church, dis- 
cussed by them. But the Encyclopaedia of Religious 
Knowledge, so confidently quoted by Mr. Campbell as 
impartial, is one of the most inaccurate works I saw, in 
all that relates to the Catholic system. 

Among the Protestant writers whose works I ex- 
amined, I found Dr. Spring, in his Dissertation, to whom 
I have often referred, one of the most extreme. He 
charges the Catholic Church with a complication of evils 
enough to ruin any cause, if true. He says, among other 
things : Rome cannot endure discussion. The only 
safety of her wicked system is to keep the world in dark- 
ness." 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 383 



As I read Protestant and Catholic writers together, I 
soon found this charge denied by the latter. One of 
the works read by me at the same time I read this dis- 
sertation of Dr. Spring's, is the volume containing the 
Moorfield Lectures of Dr. Wiseman, in the thirteenth 
lecture of which I found this language, p. no, vol. 2: 

" We are anxious not to shrink from inquiry, but to 
court it ; we throw open our places of worship to all men ; 
we publish our books of prayer and instruction before the 
world; we submit the least of our children and their 
catechism to examination; we invite all to inspect our 
schools and present the masters and their scholars to 
their interrogation; all that we write and read is at the 
command of the learned ; and, if in our power, we would 
open our breasts, and ask them to look even into our 
hearts — -for God knows we have nothing to shade, 
nothing to conceal — and then let them read our belief, 
as written on its tablets in the simplest and plainest terms. 
No attack can any longer be allowed by any sensible, rea- 
sonable, generous, or Hberal-minded man, except through 
calm and cool investigation, based entirely on the correct 
statement of our doctrines, and conducted exclusively, 
not by vague quotations from the word of God, but by 
arguments clearly and strongly addressed to his under- 
standing." 

The first work I read, in the course of my investigations 
into the truth of the Catholic system, was the debate be- 
tween Campbell and Purcell. I was a member of the 
same church with Mr. Campbell and had the utmost con- 
fidence in him. All my partialities were in his favor. And 
yet I must say, I was mortified when I read the debate 
in question, because of the extreme bitterness of the 
charges he made, and the manner in which he shifted his 
positions, and the objectionable character of many of his 



384 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



main assumptions, inferences, and deductions. The read- 
ing of the debate did not make me a Cathohc, as I thought 
I saw grounds of objection not met by Bishop Purcell; 
but I could not but see that Mr. Campbell had fought 
with all sorts of weapons, and had addressed too many 
of his arguments to mere ignorance and prejudice. 

For example, he says in reference to the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation : 

" But the priest can bring down the divine Saviour 
from heaven, and offer him body, soul, and divinity, as 
often as he pleases, and have the people adore both him 
and the miracle in his hands!! " (Debate C. & P., 292.) 

In this extract it is substantially assumed that, in the 
contemplation of the Catholic theory, the change in the 
elements is produced by the miraculous power of the 
priest, and that the priest is adored as well as the miracle. 
In all my investigations I could never find such a doc- 
trine. The change is held to be produced by the words 
of Christ, " This is my body," in the same way that the 
words of Christ produce the effect intended when He 
said, Thy sins are forgiven thee " — " Be thou clean " — 
" Thou art loosed from thine infirmity " — " Lazarus, 
come forth." The Catholic Church holds that Christ has 
promised, that when these words are used in the admin- 
istration of the Eucharist, He Himself, by His own Word, 
will produce the change. And that any adoration was 
allowed to the priest, I could never find any proof, be- 
cause it is false. 

A very common mode of misrepresentation among 
Protestant writers was the assumption of an historical 
fact contrary to the genuine facts of history. A notable 
example of this may be found in the late work of Dr. 
Edward Beecher, " The Papal Controversy Exposed." I 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 385 



have not seen the work, and quote only from a review 
of it: 

" The Pilgrim Fathers of New England, and the other 
Protestant founders of this great nation, came to this 
continent soon after the Reformation had shaken the 
European world, to lay the foundation of a new order 
of things, by erecting a new social system upon the great 
principles of civil and religious liberty." 

If the Pilgrim Fathers and other Protestant founders, 
came with the intention to lay the foundation of a new 
order of things, and did so, embracing both civil and re- 
ligious liberty, we are at a loss to find any competent 
historical proof of that fact. 

This system of general misrepresentation has been con- 
fessed by many of the most candid Protestant writers. 
Thus the Rev. Mr. Nightingale, in his Religion of All 
Nations, says : " From diligent inquiry it has been ascer- 
tained that party spirit and prejudice have thrown the 
most undeserved obloquy upon the religion and practices 
of the Roman Catholics ; — in scarcely a single instance 
has a case concerning them beefi fairly stated, or the 
channels of history not grossly, not to say wickedly, cor- 
rupted." (Page 65.) "Even the illiberal 'Mr. Ulix," 
says Archbishop Hughes, says that the Catholic religion 
is ' calumniated cruelly.' " No religious system," says 
Nightingale, is treated so unjustly." And Hume de- 
clares that Protestants seemed to have thought that no 
truth should be told of the Papists." The learned Grotius 
reproaching the Protestant ministers on this head, re- 
ceived for reply, " that they found it necessary for the 
public good of the Reformed Religion." (Letters to 
Vossius.) And Vossius himself, in the same correspond- 
ence, writes, that when he reproved the ministers of 



386 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



Amsterdam, they admitted the iniquity of the proceeding ; 

but," added they, if we leave off such language, our 
people will soon leave us." 

Causes of this system of misrepresentation. 

Several questions naturally arise under this state of 
fact. What causes originally led to this system of general 
misrepresentation? What causes continue it even to the 
present day? Is it done with the calm and deliberate 
intent to create and foster that " contempt prior to ex- 
amination," which can and will resist any amount of 
argument and proof whatsoever? Or does it continue 
from an ignorance of the Catholic doctrine? 

That this system of injustice had its origin mainly in 
a want of integrity, I have no doubt; and that, in many 
instances, it is still continued from the same motive, I 
am forced to believe. In most cases its continuance arises 
from a real ignorance of the Catholic faith and its his- 
tory, and from such a prior disgust, as prevents a fair 
examination. 

In the beginning and during the progress of what is 
called the Reformation, many of the most unprincipled 
men, from a variety of motives, put themselves at the 
head of that movement. Such men are ever disposed to 
lead any new commotion that promises them any gratifica- 
tion of their passions. 

Alison, the distinguished Protestant historian, in his 
History of Europe, has this language: 

^' The great sin of the Reformation was the confiscation 
of so large a portion of the property of the Church for 
the aggrandizement of temporal ambition, and the enrich- 
ing of the nobility, who had taken part in the struggle. 
When the great convulsion broke out, nearly a third of 
the whole landed estates, in the countries which it ern- 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 387 

braced, was in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. 
What a noble fund was this for the moral and religious 
instruction of the people, for the promulgation of truth, 
the healing of sickness, the assuaging of suffering. Had 
it been kept together, and set apart for such sacred pur- 
poses, what incalculable and never-ending blessings would 
it have conferred upon society. Expanding and increas- 
ing with the growth of population, the augmentation of 
wealth, the swell of pauperism, it would have kept the 
instruction and fortunes of the poor abreast of the prog- 
ress and fortunes of society; and prevented, in a great 
measure, that fatal effect, so well known in Great Britain 
in subsequent times, of the national church falling be- 
hind the wants of the inhabitants, and a mass of civilized 
heathenism arising in the very heart of a Christian land. 
Almost all the social evils under which Great Britain is 
now laboring, may be traced to this fatal, and most 
iniquitous spoliation, under the mask of religion, of the 
patrimony of the poor, on the occasion of the Reforma- 
tion." 

And the learned historian may well call this confisca- 
tion "THE GREAT SIN " — " This most iniquitous 
spoliation of the patrimony of the poor, under the mask 
of religion." 

From these great and unquestioned historical facts, 
two conclusions plainly follow : 

1. That they were truly the leaders to whom the 
plunder was distributed. This is a test, simple and con- 
clusive. 

2. That the love of plunder and pure intentions are 
never found in the same breast at the same time. They 
are too incompatible to exist together. 

It is, then, clear to my mind, that the motives of the 
leading spirits who did, in fact, control and govern that 



388 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



movement generally were interested and mercenary. And 
from this it is also evident that the sincere who partici- 
pated in it were forced to yield to the bold, the forward, 
and the unprincipled. We see a noted example of this, in 
the dispensation granted by Luther, Melancthon, and 
others, to Philip, the Landgrave of Hesse, to have two 
wives at once. 

These being the characteristics and motives of the 
leaders of the Reformation, they would necessarily labor 
to vindicate and sustain themselves ; and, in doing so, the 
only question they would ask, would be this : " How 
shall we do so the most successf ully f " Success, not 
right, would be, with them, the leading impulse. And 
not only so, but they would naturally make up in bitter- 
ness, false accusation, and crafty evasion, what they truly 
lacked in argument and fact. An act of gross injustice 
is certain to be vindicated by calumny and slander. The 
victim must be degraded, to justify the oppressor; and 
this is but the result of the " despairing necessities of 
falsehood." It was very natural, therefore, to resort to 
this system of vindictive and bitter crimination and 
crafty evasion. The taking of property that did not be- 
long to them, but really had, for ages before, belonged 
to others, was so plain and palpable a violation of the 
principles of eternal justice, that nothing could extenuate 
it, even in appearance, but the utmost delinquency on 
the part of the plundered victim. And the most vindic- 
tive, bitter, and relentless animosity will always be found 
with those who themselves have grievously wronged 
others, from mercenary motives. 

In this way the " channels of history," as Mr. Night- 
ingale truly says, were originally "grossly, not to say 
wickedly, corrupted." Or, in the language of another 
distinguished writer, (if I can quote from recollection 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 389 

correctly,) modern history has been one grand con- 
spiracy against truth." Speaking of Bishop Burnet's 
History, Dr. Johnson said : " Burnet's History of his 
own times is very entertaining. The style, indeed, is 
mere chit-chat. I do not believe that Burnet intentionally 
lied; but he was so prejudiced, that he took no pains to 
find out the truth. He was like a man who resolved to 
regulate his time by a certain watch ; but will not inquire 
whether the watch is right or not." (Boswell.) 

This system of misrepresentation created in the minds 
of the great mass of Protestants that sort of credulity 
which is the sure and never-failing mark of prejudice, 
namely : a predisposition to believe any and every thing 
horrible and absurd in the doctrines and practices of re- 
ligious opponents, upon the mere reiteration of bold 
assertion. This prejudice extended to all classes; and 
grew up with the ministers, as well as with the members. 
The ministers and writers among Protestants have 
preached and written for this class of hearers and readers 
generally. And it is a melancholy truth, that those 
preachers and writers who have been most bitter and un- 
charitable, have generally been the most popular, and 
the most honored and patronized. This tribute to 
prejudice and bitterness has naturally called into promi- 
nent activity too many preachers and writers of that reck- 
less character; and those again have reacted upon their 
readers and hearers. 

By such means, and such instruments, prejudice is 
still kept up; and prejudice is ever unreasonable. It 
always reverses the rules of logic and reason, and loves a 
smart sophism much better than a sound argument. In 
violation of that great rule of law and right reason, as 
laid down by Starkie, in his treatise on Evidence, that 
" the more atrocious the nature of the crime is, the more 



390 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



repugnant it is to the common feelings of human nature, 
the more improbable it is that it has been perpetrated at 
all," this unfortunate state of mind will believe a charge 
the more readily, because of its unnatural atrocity and 
absurdity, and the improbability of its being committed 
by such numbers, and under such circumstances. Con- 
sequently, when the Tales of Maria Monk were pub- 
lished, they were read and believed with eagerness by too 
many Protestants, and even by Protestant ministers. 
Had such a mass of vilification been published against 
any other body of professed Christians, no one would 
have believed it. This eagerness to hear and believe such 
stories and calumnies is the sure test of a diseased state 
of mind. You may take two persons, one impartial, and 
the other prejudiced, and you may inform them of a 
charge against the members of an imposing party or 
Church, imputing very base misconduct, and the im- 
partial man will require proof, clear and strong, in pro- 
portion to the enormity of the offence, and will believe 
it with regret, while the dupe of prejudice will jump to 
a conclusion of guilty, with a joy and alacrity in propor- 
tion as the offence is grievous, and the evidence doubt- 
ful; especially when the charge is of some secret crime, 
that requires a smart man to find it out. And I have 
often remarked, in the course of my reading and obser- 
vation, that charges of dark, secret, and unnatural crimes 
are most readily believed by prejudiced persons in every 
grade of life. 

It is this prejudice on the part of too many Protestant 
writers and readers which prevents them from examining 
Catholic authorities for Catholic doctrines. They blindly 
follow others who have gone before them. 

But another reason which prevents even just ami un- 
prejudiced Protestants from consulting Catholic stand- 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 391 



ards for Catholic tenets, is the melancholy fact that these 
misrepresentations of the Catholic system are too often 
found in the works of Protestant writers of distinguished 
ability, of great personal purity, and official dignity; as 
if these eminent men had first carefully built up such a 
reputation, that they might give the more permanence 
and force to their misrepresentations. In their eminent 
stations they had been scrupulously just and gentle to all 
the world besides; as if reserving all their injustice and 
bitterness for one single object — the Catholic Church. 
As examples, I will mention two eminent Bishops of the 
Church of England, Porteus and Watson, whose extreme 
and bitter misrepresentations of the CathoHc faith were, 
indeed, surprising. It is not at all strange, when such 
men make such statements, that they should be implicitly 
believed. 

That this general continuance of misrepresenting the 
Catholic faith, and the history relating to it, is mainly 
the result of a true ignorance of what they are, is not 
only shown to be true by the fact that such misrepre- 
sentations exist too generally to be the result of a calm 
and deliberate predetermination, among the majority of 
Protestant writers of the present day, to commit so 
grievous a moral wrong, not to say crime; but is very 
conclusively proven by a circumstance stated by Bishop 
Hughes, in his letter to Mr. Breckenridge, dated March 
25, 1833. (Con. H. & B., 70:) 

" Since your allusion to Bishop Kendrick has led me 
into this episode, I may as well close it with a little in- 
cident which occurred to myself last spring, and does not, 
therefore, depend on ' information.' I happened to go 
into the session-room of the ' General Assembly,' and 
found the ' Bishop ' engaged in settling a question which 
I soon discovered to be interesting ; viz., ' whether bap- 



392 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



tism, administered by a Catholic priest, is valid ! ' A 
committee, it seems, had been appointed to draw up a 
report, which was being read when I entered. The com- 
mittee had decided in the negative, and in support of this 
decision, reported a variety of reasons, with two of which 
I was particularly struck. One was that they (Catholic 
priests) baptize in Latin; as if infants were not quite as 
well acquainted with this language as with any other. 
The second was, that they (Catholic priests) baptize 
with oil — a discovery reported on the authority of a 
certain doctor, I think, of Maryland. It was listened 
to with great but silent solemnity — ■ although there were 
at the mom.ent five baptismal fonts, in as many Catholic 
churches, within half a mile of where the Assembly was 
sitting; and though it is known to all the world that the 
Catholic baptism is, and ever has been, with water, I 
retired from the presence of these * Teachers in Israel,' 
revolving in my mind the words of our Blessed Re- 
deemer : ' If in the green wood they do these things, 
what shall be done in the dry ? ' " 

Another remarkable case occurred in Campbell & 
Purcell's Debate. A Catholic priest had been excom- 
municated in Philadelphia some years before, and some 
mischievous wag had copied the obscene curses found in 
Sterne's " Tristram Shandy," and had them published 
in a newspaper as the curses pronounced against the 
expelled priest. Mr. Campbell was deceived by this 
trick, and seriously read Sterne's curses, as a grievous 
charge against the Catholic Church. 

I have said that in the beginning and during the 
progress of the Reformation, many unprincipled men put 
themselves at the head of that movement ; and that such 
men necessarily adopted that line of self- justification 
which, in the nature of the case, would be most sue- 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS - 393 



cessfid. And while a greater proportion of the unprin- 
cipled men was found among the early writers of the 
Reformation, it is undoubtedly true, that many of the 
same character have lived and flourished since, and still 
live and flourish ; 

" Without the care of knowing right from wrong, 
Always appear decisive, clear, and strong; 
Where others toil with philosophic force, 
Their nimble nonsense takes a shorter course. 
Flings at your head conviction in a lump. 
And gains remote conclusions at a jump." 

Then, again, there is a large class of Protestants, who, 
while they will not themselves positively and affirma- 
tively propagate these misrepresentations of the Catho- 
lic faith, will still wink at them, and take no care, and 
make no effort, to prevent or correct the wrong. They 
are entirely passive, while they see the grossest injustice 
done, and seem to satisfy their consciences, as Pilate did 
his, when he washed his hands and declared himself 
innocent of the blood of Christ. But is such conduct 
just? Is it not the bounden duty of all good men to 
afflrmatively oppose falsehood, and prevent injustice, 
when in their power ? Will such morality stand the stern 
and rigid test of the great Judgment? 

Reflections. 

This system of misrepresentation of Catholic doc- 
trines, practices, and intentions, so general among Prot- 
estant writers, gave rise, in my mind, to very serious 
questions. Why did SUCCESS originally require such 
a line of argument? Why did truth require such a sup- 
port? Why was such a course preferred in support of 
an alleged true system? And why is it still necessary? 

Are bad arguments more effective than good? Is mis- 
27 



394 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



representation better in a good cause, than candor and 
truth? If the doctrines really held by Catholics were so 
false, erroneous, and absurd, did they need exaggeration 
to cause their rejection? Does the grossest error, or 
error of any kind, require to be darkened beyond its 
real demerits, to make it hated and despised? And is 
it necessary to prepare the human mind for the reception 
of truth, that it should first be filled with falsehood? 
Do you sow weeds before you sow good grain? Is it 
necessary to inculcate charity, that you should first give 
a proof of its absence, in the party who inculcates 
it? And if you wish to put down falsehood, is it neces- 
sary, by your own act, to show its utility and neces- 
sity? 

True, it is a practical rule with too many to use false- 
hood against alleged falsehood, according to the common 
maxim, that you must oppose the Devil with fire. But 
is this Christianity? Is it true philosophy? On the 
contrary, is it not the doctrine of revenge? the practice 
of savages? the chief maxim of morality among wolves 
and tigers ? And if you wish to vanquish the Evil Spirit 
and his bad cause, had you not better fight him with 
something the opposite of that which he uses himself? 
Had you not better oppose evil with good? 

Does not this NECESSITY arise from other causes? 
Is it because there is a unity, a force, a beauty, in the 
Catholic system, that renders it logically impregnable? 
Is it because it is so conformable to the truth of Christi- 
anity, JUST AS IT IS, and not as the passions, interests, 
and pride of men would make it, that the CathoHc 
theory is so much misrepresented and despised? Why 
is it that every proud innovator upon a permanent sys- 
tem — every wild fanatic — every demagogue in religion 
— every sect, and the broken fragments of every sect. 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 395 



from Simon Magus to the present time, have one and all 
been down upon the Old Church? 

It is true, it is an exclusive system. Every true sys- 
tem must be so. It is a system of humility, of penance, 
and of self-mortification and restraint. And these feat- 
ures are exceedingly distasteful to human nature. The 
Catholic does claim to be the sole true Church; not a 
mere part and parcel of it. She acts as if she was 
such. She is as exclusive as truth — as stubborn as 
fact. She has no compromise to make — none to of- 
fer — none to accept. Like an immovable mountain, 
you must go to her. She adapts not her faith to suit 
changing circumstances, or the v^hims of men, or the 
temper of the times. Her terms are the same to all. 
If the great Napoleon sins at the head of his victorious 
legions, he is excommunicated. If the mighty Henry 
the Vlllth did labor for her, and did great service in her 
cause, and, therefore, did deserve her thanks; and pre- 
suming upon his claims and influence, asks a divorce 
from his lawful, injured, and innocent wife, his re- ' 
quest is peremptorily refused, whatever may be the con- 
sequences. She teaches that Christianity cannot be 
improved — that the Church, being the work of Christ, 
cannot be reformed. If a man is proud, he can- 
not go to confession. If he be fond of luxury, the 
fasts of the Church will appear exceedingly absurd and 
oppressive. In short, if he enters her confines, he must 
make great present sacrifices. He must merge his in- 
dividual religious importance in that of the Church, as 
one whole. And this constitutes the true distinction be- 
tween the impulses of immediate self-interest and holy 
love for the cause. She also teaches that salvation and 
glory are found at the end of the journey, and not along 
the path of travel. 



396 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



And are not these characteristics of the CathoHc Church 
the true cause of that INEXORABLE NECESSITY 
which forces her opponents to fight with any weapons 
they find most available, and, therefore, to resort to this 
ungenerous system of misrepresentation and abuse? 
True it is, she does claim superiority over all others. 
And this claim would necessarily wound their pride. 
From the very nature of this exclusive system, it must 
arouse this peculiar kind of resistance. It stands op- 
posed to too many darling wishes and impulses not to in- 
cur this most bitter and unrelenting opposition. 

It was so with Christianity in the beginning. " Now 
the first thing that strikes us," says Dr. Paley, " is, 
that the religion they carried with them was exclusive. 
It denied without reserve the truth of every article of 
heathen mythology, the existence of every object of their 
worship. It accepted no compromise ; it admitted no 
comprehension. It must prevail, if it prevailed at all, 
by the overthrow of every statue, altar, and temple in 
the world. It will not easily be credited that a design 
so bold as this could in any age be attempted to be 
carried into execution with impunity." (Ev. of Chris.) 

While it must be readily confessed that Protestants 
and Catholics hold more doctrines in common than did 
the Heathens and Christians in the first ages of Christi- 
anity, still the Catholic Church is equally exclusive. 
She cannot sanction a mixed system of truth and error. 
She requires the genuine, and refuses the debased coin. 
She too " accepts no compromises " — she " admits no 
comprehension." And the fact that Protestants con- 
sider themselves Christians, while they are regarded by 
the Catholic Church as heretics, is, of itself, the more 
calculated to produce this system of opposition. And 
this rigid and consistent adherence to her faith — this 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 397 



intolerance, as it is called, is the ground of great com- 
plaint on the part of Protestants. " The faith of Rome," 
says Dr. Spring, " must be received implicitly, or not at 
all." (Dissertation 39.) And Dr. Spring is right 
herein. Her faith must be implicitly received. I be- 
lieve that is always the case with conscientious truth. 
If she is the true Church, she is certainly right in this. 
If she is not the true Church, and erroneously claims 
to be such, she still has the sense to be consistent; she 
has still one great and indispensable mark of truth. 

Protestantism is not exclusive. Its leading principle, 
from which all others logically and necessarily flow, is 
studiously adapted to flatter individual pride, and indulge 
the will. Its soft and flexible gum-elastic character ad- 
mits of infinite modifications, without any eflicient checks, 
and easily conforms itself to the prevailing sentiment of 
each succeeding age. Progress and Reform being its 
leading ends, it never finds rest, so long as the human 
mind loves novelty, and seeks excitement in change. 
This flexibility is fully shown by the great and con- 
tinual shiftings from the doctrines of the early Re- 
formers. 

Is it not most wonderfully surprising that the Catholic 
Church, with all her alleged superstitions, corruptions, 
errors of faith, absurd doctrines, whimsical practices, 
and austere observances, with the superadded and ac- 
cumulated mass of distortion and exaggeration of these 
alleged evils, still cannot be put down — cannot be con- 
futed — and will maintain her pre-eminence in the. Chris- 
tian world? There is something most marvellous in 
all this. God must have concerned Himself in this mat- 
ter. And as Blanco White says: 

If the mass of Christians must submit to the decision 
of another authority, by whatever name it may be called, 



398 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



the Church of Rome can fear 'no rival. You may raise 
doubts against its supremacy. But how very few minds 
of a pious character will not he overpowered by the pre- 
eminence of Rome in the Christian world f (Cited in 
Fletcher's Notes to Fenelon's Letter on the Use of the 
Bible.) 

And Mr. White, though a decided Protestant, might 
well say what he did. True, you may " raise doubts " 
against any thing. You may raise doubts against Christi- 
anity. The Christian religion is not so plain as to be 
wholly free from doubt in unwilling minds. I cannot 
conceive what merit there could be in faith, what room 
there would be left for the fair exercise of humility, 
if the proofs of Christianity were so overwhelming as 
to demonstrate its truth to all men. There is ample 
proof to satisfy the honest, patient, and diligent inquirer, 
while there is enough of doubt to perplex the proud 
and suspicious — the dishonest and the selfish — the 
thoughtless and the negligent. 

After all the bitterness with which she has been as- 
sailed; and after all the cavils and objections that human 
wit, sharpened by interested animosity, or habitual preju- 
dice, has been able to raise, or may be yet able to raise, 
who would not, at last, rather die in the communion of 
this old calumniated, suffering, and yet invincible 
Church? Old House of God, I love thee! And the 
reason why, I have told, and will tell. 

How did these alleged errors get into the Church, and 

when? 

One of the most deep and serious questions that arose 
in my mind was this : How and when did these alleged 
absurd, unscriptural, and disgusting errors get into 
the Church? 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 399 



In my investigations I began at the beginning, and 
considered the Church as it came from the hands of the 
apostles. By the consent of all parties, the apostles did 
their duty, and taught all the truth, and no more. They 
left the Church in the hands, and under the government, 
of those officers they themselves had personally in- 
structed and appointed. That they generally made good 
and worthy appointments, I had no doubt. That those 
they appointed were properly instructed, I could not 
question. The Church left by them needed no improve- 
ment. She was spread over the entire Roman Empire; 
and numerous Churches existed as branches of THE 
CHURCH, in all of which the faith, once delivered, had 
been carefully taught and deposited. It was in the best 
days of Roman literature, when those arts best calculated, 
in their nature, to develop the reasoning faculties, were 
most fully cultivated, and most generally diffused. And 
this state of things continued until the destruction of the 
Roman Empire in the West, by the Goths, Vandals, and 
other barbarous hordes in the fifth century. The first 
three centuries were days of general persecution, with 
intervals of rest ; while in the fourth, the Church was 
alternately protected and oppressed by the Roman Em- 
perors ; and in the fifth, her sufferings were extreme. 
It was in those suffering ages that the " seed took root 
amongst the stones and thorns, and sprang beneath the 
axe, and blossomed in the blast " — it was then that 
" the Circus flowed with blood, but the immortal Spirit 
walked the red surge and foam, and led the sinking to 
eternal rest " — and it was then that twelve millions 
of martyrs laid down their lives, 

"And lift their raptured looks on high, 
As though it were a joy to die" 



400 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



for the sublime faith of Christ. In short, the Church 
arose, and continued for the first five centuries, in an 
enhghtened country, came well instructed, widely dif- 
fused, and yet perfectly united, from the hands of the 
apostles. 

Now to prove the fact that these observances, and 
this organization began at the time and place mentioned, 
we will assume that they were organized and instituted 
at some time and place, for the association is now in 
being, and these ordinances are now observed. The or- 
ganization of this body, and the institution of those ob- 
servances, are plain matters of historical fact, and can 
be known; and whenever they did take place, the fact 
must have been known, from the very nature of the 
case. Can any one show that this organization, and the 
institution of these visible observances, were commenced 
at any other time? If they originated at one time, and 
the book stated they originated at another and a dif- 
ferent time, then there would be a positive contradiction, 
and the falsehood must be known. Suppose this asso- 
ciation did not exist, and the observances were not in- 
stituted by the persons, and at the time and place stated, 
and the book should have been forged at a later date, 
still stating the pre-existence of those alleged notorious 
visible facts, would not all men at once say ? " This 
book is false upon the face of it; for it states as past 
events, things that no one ever heard of, and all our own 
experience is in direct and palpable conflict with the al- 
leged facts recorded in this book. This whole thing is 
new, and not old, as stated ; and, therefore, must be false. 
Where is the body of men that ever did keep these ob- 
servances? Who has heard of them before? Who has 
ever heard of this book before? These alleged facts 
were of such a character as to attract the earnest atten- 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 401 



tion of all men. Who can believe that they could have 
existed, as alleged, and no one know it? " 

It is evidently true, that the bare success of a religion, 
without regard to the character of the proofs upon which 
it assumes to rest, or the means' used to attain this suc- 
cess, or the circumstances attending the propagation of 
the theory, is no evidence of the entire truth of the 
system itself. All religions have prevailed to a greater 
or less extent; and the truth is undeniable, that they 
assume to rest upon different grounds, appeal to dif- 
ferent classes of proof, were propagated by different 
means, and under different circumstances ; while they all 
agree in some great leading features. These facts, when 
justly considered, would seem to lead clearly to these 
conclusions : 

1. That man, by a law of his own nature, impressed 
upon him by the Creator, is a religious being. From 
this law he knows that he is a subordinate being — that 
there exists a Supreme Intelligent Cause — and that the 
natural relation existing between the Creating, and the 
created. Intelligence, entitles the former to the adoration 
and obedience of the latter. This knowledge of his duty, 
derived from this law of his nature, though limited as 
it is, is still sufficient to put him upon inquiry, and makes 
the duty of further inquiry, obligatory. It is a well- 
known principle of law, applicable to certain classes of 
cases, that when a party is entitled to notice of certain 
facts, and has not notice of them in full, but has sufficient 
notice to put him upon inquiry, by a reasonable .use of 
which he may know all the facts he has a right to know 
in reference to the alleged matter, then the law pre- 
sumes full notice, and treats the party accordingly. 

2. That man, without a special revelation, could never 
know his full duty, and his true destination. 



402 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



If, then, a system of religion should be proposed, em- 
bracing the first great truth above stated, it will neces- 
sarily attract the attention of men, and lead to investi- 
gation. If the theory assume to be only based upon 
reasoning, or secret miracles, the efficient means of con- 
tradiction are not given by the theory itself ; and where 
one exists, or another is proposed, at the same time, the 
choice must rest between bald, desolate Atheism, or 
cold, vague Deism, on the one hand, and the system al- 
ready existing, or the one proposed, on the other. As 
man cannot, without a direct revelation, arrive at all the 
features of the true rehgion, he is compelled, from the 
nature of the case, to take the best offered, or reject all. 
And as it must be a very bad religion, that is not better 
than infidelity, and that contains less of truth in it, the 
natural religion of the human heart and mind will gen- 
erally take the lesser evil of the two. 

But, on the contrary, if a new religion, or any material 
change of a received religion, be proposed, and such re- 
ligion or change be based upon visible miracles, or upon 
any other simple and easily understood basis, the natural 
law of consistency will induce all to compare the system 
or change proposed with the grounds assumed for it to 
rest upon. The means of detection are given in both 
cases alike, and will he used in both. If, therefore, the 
grounds, as given, be false, or the thing proposed be 
inconsistent therewith, it must, and will, in most cases, 
be rejected. The human mind loves consistency; this 
love is one of its simplest impulses ; and when referred 
for proof to that which is either plainly false or clearly 
inconsistent with the theory to be established, will uni- 
formly turn away, and seek truth in some other quarter, 
unless some other very powerful and tempting motive 
overrule this natural result. 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 403 



From the admissions of all parties — from the lan- 
guage of the Scriptures, and the testimony of the Fathers, 
the faith once delivered was to remain unchanged to the 
end of time. And no sentiment is more often and con- 
tinuously reiterated and affirmed than this : that nothing 
new was to be added, and nothing taken away. 

The Church, as it came from the hands of the apostles, 
was firmly grounded in this very plain and important 
fundamental position, and not only grounded in the posi- 
tion itself, but each member did know what was taught 
— what were his recognized and established rights — 
what observances were in the Church and uniformly kept 
by all — and what doctrines, ordinances, and practices, 
were CLAIMED as coming from the apostles. And 
with this plain and obvious rule in the mouths of all the 
teachers, and of all the lay members, and with this knowl- 
edge in the memories and minds of all, what a strange 
unaccountable falsehood it was, in the face of this plain 
principle, and of these simple and known facts, to assert 
and insist that these nezv, absurd, glaring, and unscrip- 
tural tenets, and oppressive ordinances, had always ex- 
isted in the Church — had come down from the apos- 
tles — were old, and not new — if it be true, as Protes- 
tants contend, that these daring innovations upon an ad- 
mitted unchangeable faith, were introduced into the 
Church by fraud, covin, and deceit. And if these alleged 
errors were introduced into the true Church, in their true 
garb, as new, how perfectly inconsistent they were with 
the known faith, and the plain established rule ! 

That these alleged errors were of a character to arrest 
the immediate attention of all, and to give the most 
serious shocks to the entire system, is clear, not only 
from their own nature, but from the strong and violent 
denunciations they receive from Protestants themselves. 



404 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



If errors at all, they were certainly great and important. 
They made a change in the system, as palpable and im- 
portant, as can well be conceived : a change that made as 
great a difference between the old and the new theory, 
as is the difference between fallibility and infallibility in 
the Church. And the alleged change was not only mani- 
fest and plain, but the means of detection, confutation, 
and resistance, were known to, and within the reach of, 
all the members. 

Under the Protestant view, this well-instructed, widely- 
diffused, and united suffering Church, went with rapid 
strides from the pure faith once delivered, into the most 
grievous errors ; and by the absurd change, involved 
herself in still more intense suffering and disgrace. 

And why did she do so? What unaccountable delus- 
ion could so deceive her ? The same reasons existed then 
against these errors, if errors at all, as exist now. The 
same permanent code of law then existed as now, and 
the same objections would have been urged. The 
Christians of those days had the same impulses of hu- 
man nature, and must have entertained the same op- 
position to injury and oppression. Until the alleged er- 
rors were introduced into the church, she was pure and 
untainted. She must have been aware of this state 
of the case. All preceding ages were with her in senti- 
ment from the beginning. The precedents of all the past 
sustained her. They were for, and not against her. 
How, then, could a plain and grievous innovation in 
faith or observances be introduced, and her teachers not 
know it? To condemn such an error, or such a practice, 
it was only necessary to recur to their memories. Their 
past and present experience — the simple testimony of 
recollection — was sufficient at once to mark the error. 
If new, it was false. And this act of memory was a 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 405 



test in possession of all. It was simple and certain. 
Even a child can remember ; and the most simple-minded 
individual can know what he has seen and heard all his 
life. A man can also know whether be believes a certain 
doctrine. He may not be certain that the doctrine is 
true; but among the simple matters of fact which he 
can know, is the fact whether he believes it to be true. 

It is upon this plain testimony of memory and expe- 
rience, that Leslie's argument in answer to the charge, 
that the Scriptures were forged in ages after the rites 
were said to have been instituted, is based. And he in- 
sists, with unanswerable power, that the fabricators of 
this alleged forgery could never have made the Jews be- 
lieve, in spite of their invariable experience to the con- 
trary, that they had received these books long before from 
their fathers, had been taught them when they were 
children, and had taught them to their own children." 

And is not this line of argument equally applicable to 
the case in hand ? In the case of the Jews, the difficulty 
was to convince them, contrary to their positive expe- 
rience, and the simple testimony of their memories, that 
they had long possessed a book, claiming to be ancient, 
but, in fact, then for the first time introduced, and had 
long actually believed and practised the doctrines, and 
kept the observance therein mentioned. And in the case 
of the alleged Catholic errors,- the insuperable difficulty 
was, to make the Christians believe that they had al- 
ways held doctrines then first promulgated and never 
heard of before, and had always kept observances that 
no one in the Church had ever seen performed. In such 
a case, the gray-haired and venerable members of the 
Church, in every part of the world, would have risen up 
as one man, and said : " We have been members of the 
Church for many years — we never heard of such a doc- 



4o6 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



trine — we never witnessed such a practice. It is new, 
inconsistent, and false/' 

For the sake of illustration we will take the doctrine 
and practice of Confession. It is a doctrine not flatter- 
ing to human pride- — not palatable to human nature. 
The practice is equally repugnant to that " something in 
human nature " referred to by Mr. Campbell ; and this 
practice is remarkably plain, and easily understood and 
remembered. How, then, were the Christians persuaded 
to submit to both the doctrine and practice of that which 
was not only false in itself, but contrary to the universal 
and fundamental rule to reject all innovations upon the 
known and established faith? How were they made to 
believe, contrary to their invariable experience, that these 
things had always been in the Church? How was hu- 
man nature so completely overcome? That which 
shocked all common sense — falsified all experience, and 
yet claimed to be old and familiar — that which was new, 
repugnant, arrogant, oppressive and disgusting, was 
palmed upon the universal Church without difficulty or 
resistance! How could this be possible? If this could 
have been done, what could not have been done? Can 
we fix any limits at all to human imposition, or to human 
credulity? You might as well attempt to establish a 
religion assuming to found itself upon visible miracles, 
when, in fact, there were no miracles, as to hope to in- 
troduce new doctrines and observances as old and well 
known. In both cases the thing proposed is wholly in- 
consistent with the recognized basis upon which it as- 
sumes to rest, and in direct contradiction to the plainest 
tests of truth • — the evidence of all our senses in the one 
case, and of our memory and positive experience in the 
other. 

There was another weighty reflection that forced itself 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 407 



upon my mind, which was this : That these alleged 
errors were additions to the faith, not subtractions from 
it. In the view of Protestants the following tenets are 
held to be pure ADDITIONS to the faith once de- 
livered; namely: The Infallibility of the Church, The 
Primacy of St. Peter, The Sacraments of Confirmation, 
Penance, Matrimony, Extreme Unction, and Holy 
Orders, and the doctrines of Traditions, Transubstantia- 
tion, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Prayers for the 
Dead, and the continuance of miracles in the Church. 
And in the view of those who reject Infant Baptism, 
and baptism by pouring or sprinkling, these were also 
pure additions. In reference to one or two of the sacra- 
ments mentioned above, a portion of the Protestant 
world agreed with the Catholic Church. This Hst of 
alleged errors is certainly very formidable; and the 
crimes therein stated are grievous enough, and their 
alleged introduction sufficiently inconsistent in a Church 
always, at all times, and in all places CLAIMING only 
to teach that which had always been received in one 
unbroken and continuous line of succession from the 
apostles. Such a mighty mass of imposition, if imposi- 
tion at all, is entirely, under the existing circumstances, 
without any parallel in human history. 

" In the moral, as in the natural world, it is change 
that requires a cause. Men are easily fortified in their 
old opinions, driven from them with great difficulty." 
So says Dr. Paley in his Evidences of Christianity. And 
the learned divine might have well added, that this 
change is still the more difficult when produced by ad- 
ditions, than when the effect of mere negligence. 
Affirmative change is the more difficult. And when this 
affirmative change is inconsistent with the plain and well- 
understood basis upon which the system itself assumes 



4o8 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



to rest, and when it is against, not only the old opinions 
and received maxims of individuals, but also their inter- 
ests, and their acknowledged rights, then, indeed, the dif- 
ficulty becomes insurmountable. If you ask a person to 
rise earlier and do more work in the day than he has 
been accustomed to, you will be apt to incur very strong 
opposition, and very forcible reasons will be required to 
produce the change. But, on the contrary, if you re- 
quire less, you will scarcely offend him. He will most 
readily sleep later, and do less work. 

And if the Church could make any change in the faith, 
I should always expect to find it in the negligent loss of 
some mystery above reason, or of some humiliating 
doctrine and practice. It certainly is the impulse of 
human nature, to get to heaven with as little sacrifice 
as possible. Whatever is above reason, or apparently 
repugnant to it, and whatever is painful to our pride, 
or asks a sacrifice of any kind, would be most apt to be 
lost by either a corrupt or negligent Church. To omit 
a doctrine or practice, requires no affirmative act. It- 
requires nothing but inaction. Negligence will bring 
this about. 

When we look to the history of ancient heresy, we shall 
find that it generally consisted in denials and rejections 
of received doctrines. Hymenseus and Alexander denied 
all future resurrection. The heretics mentioned by St. 
Ignatius, denied the reality of Christ's body. The Arians 
denied His divinity. The Novatians denied the efficacy 
of repentance. The Manichseans forbid marriage, and 
prohibited meats, and denied the supremacy of the one 
God. 

When we look into the principal tenets of the Re- 
formers, we shall still find the same general character- 
istic. Their alleged Reformation consisted in denials 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 409 



and rejections of received doctrines and observances. 

The most insuperable difficulty with me, was to under- 
stand how a Churchy so well instructed — so well 
grounded in the true faith — always acting upon the 
plain principle that no additions could be made to the 
faith, and nothing lost — a Church so vigilant that 
nothing was, in fact, lost — could be so far deluded and 
deceived, as not only to surrender her rights, her faith, 
and her integrity, but to do so with such an entire and 
easy unanimity as to cause no dissensions in the Church. 

That the Church was vigilant to guard the deposit of 
faith, is not only shown by the conclusive fact that she 
lost none originally given, but it is shown by the history 
of the Church itself. The works of the Fathers are full 
of proofs of this vigilance. We have the most full and 
minute lists of heretics, including even the most obscure 
sects ; and yet we never hear of any divisions caused by 
the introduction of this great mass of alleged error. The 
very animated discussions in the Church, at an early day, 
as to the time of celebrating Easter, shows her care and 
anxiety to preserve unity, even in matters of discipline. 
The time when each heresy arose, by whom it was intro- 
duced, and its distinctive characteristics, are all given. 
And what is still more remarkable is the fact, that these 
sects agreed with the Catholic Church in most of the doc- 
trines condemned by Protestants, and separated from the 
Church upon grounds conceded by Protestants to have 
been erroneous. 

That the Catholic doctrines were held by the universal 
Church of the first five centuries, and were not in gen- 
eral denied even by those heretics, whose doctrines 
Protestants themselves cannot stand, (except as to the 
Rule of Faith,) would seem to be clear beyond all rea- 
sonable doubt. Even those who would deny the 



410 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



jusiice of this conclusion, must still concede the unques- 
tioned fact, that these Catholic doctrines, now disputed 
by Protestants, were held and maintained by the great- 
est and most widely-known Fathers and martyrs of those 
days, as well as by the councils of the Church. Why, 
]then, were there no discussions, no divisions, no denials 
' by others, if those doctrines were new, disgusting, re- 
volting and false? We know that Origen and others 
put forth certain opinions of their own, upon a few 
points, and these were promptly resisted, and put down. 
Why was this vigilance not exercised in resisting the in- 
troduction of the alleged Catholic errors? 

To introduce these alleged errors at once, was surely 
impossible ; and to introduce them gradually, without pro- 
ducing intense commotions and divisions, would seem 
equally incredible. Dr. Priestly did contend that the 
Divinity of Christ, never dreamed of, as he supposed, in 
the days of the apostles, crept in as an opinion a short 
time afterwards, waxed strong, until it was finally en- 
acted into an article of faith in the Council of Nice 
A. D. 325. 

How this process could be so silent as to entirely escape 
detection and, at the same time, so efficient as to intro- 
duce successfully such alleged errors, I could not per- 
ceive. How the change could be so gradual as not only 
to escape notice, while going on, but also to be unknown 
and unfelt after it was accomplished, I could not tell. 
Can you cut a man's arm off so gradually that he will 
not feel it? Can you do this so imperceptibly that he 
will not know, after it is done, that he has lost an arm? 
And can you make him believe that he never had but 
one? 

As to introducing them first in the shape of opinions, 
and then afterwards adopting them as articles of faith, I 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 411 



could not well understand how this could be ; especially 
in reference to those tenets contradictory of the existing 
faith. For example, I could not understand how the 
Church, holding, as an article of faith, that Christ was 
not God, could tolerate even the opinion that He was 
God. Certainly, if I am required to believe in the 
absence of all divinity in Christ, I cannot be allowed to 
hold the precise opposite, even as an opinion. If it be 
the established faith that Christ is not present in the 
Eucharist, I cannot see by what semblance of reason the 
Church would permit any member to believe the con- 
trary. In short, I cannot form any conception of that 
theory which would require members to hold a certain 
doctrine as an article of faith, and, at the same time, 
permit them to hold its opposite as an opinion. Nor 
can I understand how the human mind could contain 
these opposites, and believe them both, at the same time. 
I can well understand how, in reference to matters of 
discipline and speculative opinions, the Church allows 
her children to hold either side of the question, as matter 
of opinion; but I cannot understand how she could re- 
quire her members to believe one thing as a matter 
of faith, and, at the same time, allow them to disbelieve it. 

And it would certainly be most surprising, that the 
introduction of these alleged errors, even in the shape of 
opinions, created no dissension or discussion in the 
Church; and still more surprising, that when they were 
changed from that shape, all were required to believe, 
as faith, what before all had been required to disbelieve 
as heresy; and yet this state of case produce no discus- 
sions -and no divisions. 

I could have no confidence in the solidity of this 
attempted explanation. It was too weak and doubtful 
to rely upon. A Church starting right, and upon the 



412 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



basis of an unchangeable faith, and remaining so vigilant 
as to forget nothing, could not possibly be thus entrapped 
and deceived. If a few ministers had attempted to in- 
troduce them at any time, all the other clergy and all 
the lay members would have opposed them, and they 
would have been either put down, or the introducers ex- 
pelled from the Church. There could never have hap- 
pened such a universal and wholesale apostasy, so silently 
and smoothly accomplished, that no one opposed it, and 
no divisions followed. So long as one single honest and 
vigilant bishop, priest, or layman remained anywhere 
in the Church, these alleged errors would have encoun-'' 
tered his stern opposition ; and his opposition would have 
aroused that of others. The Church would have felt and 
recorded the shock. Such a mighty mass of error would 
have left certain and clear evidences of its introduction 
and effects. The march of a mighty army through a 
cultivated country leaves visible desolation behind. The 
travel of a monster along a dusty road, or through a 
swamp, will leave a visible track. In both cases the trail 
is plain, and it can be easily followed. And the intro- 
duction of great and grievous errors into such a Church, 
would always arouse opposition, too strong to be e*^rer 
overlooked or forgotten. 

Another reflection arose in my mind as to the state 
of case supposed by Protestants. The Church is con- 
ceded to have started right. She then held the true 
faith, no more, no less, in her widely-extended but united 
communion. The Apostle John had scarcely been in his 
grave before the very men appointed by the apostles, even 
the holy martyrs for the faith, those valiant and devoted 
souls who faced a heathen world, bearing the cross to 
the nations, and sealing their ministry, like the apostles, 
with their voluntary blood, are supposed to have been 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 413 



led away by this most strange and unaccountable de- 
lusion. And while the Church was proclaiming every- 
where " nothing new,'' she was introducing these alleged 
errors; and then, after accompHshing the ruin of the 
faith and her own, like a sinking ship, she settled down 
— gave up all this fell spirit of innovation and insisted 
that her faith was unchangeable, as she had always done. 
It is one of the peculiarly aggravating circumstances 
in her case, that she boldly and continually asserted that 
her faith was fixed and unchangeable, while in the very 
act of changing it in the most palpable and glaring re- 
spects; and having hypocritically accompHshed this, she, 
with wicked inconsistency, sanctified and fixed these 
alleged changes permanently in the Church, upon the 
very same ground of immutability. And not only so, 
but while in the very act of making these alleged ad- 
ditions to the faith, she was herself claiming an infallibil- 
ity never heard of before, and, at the very time, giving 
to all the most conclusive proofs that she did not possess 
it. She was guilty, according to the Protestant theory, 
of the gross inconsistency of declaring, with one and the 
same breath, that her creed was unchangeable — that she 
must change it — and that she was infallible in making 
changes in a fixed and immutable system. 

And notwithstanding her alleged monstrous errors, 
her palpable innovations, and her grossly inconsistent 
conduct, she has succeeded in keeping in her communion 
the overwhelming majority of all professed Christians in 
all ages since she began; and so effectually has she cov- 
ered up these alleged errors, and concealed the existence 
of the supposed true Church, in past ages, that the finger 
of time points not to them, and the page of history is 
silent. And not only so, but she has succeeded in making 
all her children, numerous as they are, and have ever 



414 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 

been, and widely dispersed, believe in her alleged pre- 
tence of infallibility, and love and adhere to her in pro- 
portion as she is supposed, by her enemies, to have been 
wicked, inconsistent, and oppressive. And so intense is 
this love and this reverence, that when her alleged errors 
are depicted in the vehement and glowing colors of sup- 
posed light and truth, and her assumed delinquencies are 
portrayed in strains of vindictive denunciation, her de- 
luded children love her the more, and cleave to her as 
the friends of old Paul did to him, only the more closely 
for these things. For by some awful and mysterious in- 
fluence — by some subtle logic — she binds her children 
with cords too attenuated to be perceived, and too strong 
to be broken. 

The Unity and Sufferings of the Old Church. 

It has been said that the continued unity of the Catholic 
Church constitutes but a flimsy argument in her favor. 
The idea intended to be conveyed by this objection is, 
that the professors of other religions, Mohammedan and 
Heathen, have continued united in their false theories; 
and that, therefore, continued unity is no argument to 
prove the truth of any religion. 

This objection, at first view, would seem to be very 
plausible. But conceding, for the sake of the argument 
only, that this unity has continued to exist among the 
professors of other religions, as well as among Catholics, 
and to the same extent ; what, then, are the true and 
legitimate deductions from such conceded premises? I 
apprehend that these results must follow : 

I. That, in the matter of religion, men are so deeply 
and vitally concerned, that among the great mass of its 
professors, the faith once delivered, is always preserved, 
and safely transmitted from generation to generation. 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 415 



And that, for example, the Mohammedanism of to-day, 
is the Mohammedanism of the beginning. It proves the 
safe transmission of reUgion, even though false, as it was 
in its original state. 

2. That the unity of the great body of professed Chris- 
tians in the Catholic Church proves, in the same way, 
the safe transmission of the religion of Jesus, as it was 
by Him delivered ; and, by consequence, is a most power- 
ful argument to prove her to be in the right. For whether 
a system of religion be true or false in its origin, the 
fact that the great mass of its professors have, for a long 
course of ages, continued united in the same faith, is a 
very strong proof of their vigilance, sincerity, and con- 
sistency; and these quaHties will be found in those who 
do safely transmit a religious theory, purporting to be 
permanent in its original form; while these qualities will 
not always be found in those who seek to vary or change 
such a system. 

It seemed to me that unity was one of the leading 
duties of Christians. That it was not only an evidence, 
for that reason, to show which is the true Church; but 
that it was a powerful argument, even with Infidels 
themselves. Our Lord certainly so considered it, when 
He prayed so fervently for the union of His followers, 
" that the world might believe that the Father had sent 
Him." So did St. Paul and St. Peter, when so earnestly 
warning their brethren against heresies and divisions. 

As unity is an attribute of the true Church, and one 
of the leading duties of Christians, were an intelligent 
stranger seeking for the true Church, would he expect 
to find it among those who do not possess this attribute, 
and have not done their duty in this great and essential 
respect? Would he expect to find a discordant true 
Church? or a changeable true Church? In his examina- 



4i6 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



tion, I suppose, he would begin at the beginning, and 
first examine the fundamental rule of each party; and if 
he found that one party, under its fundamental rule, was 
full of discords and variations, his common sense would 
tell him there was something radically wrong there. And 
he would naturally say to himself : One of two things 
is true; either Christianity has changed, or the true 
Church is not here." But were he to examine the other 
rule, and find that all who adhere to it do possess this 
unity, and at all times have possessed it, he would as 
naturally say : " One of two conclusions is true ; either 
this is the true Church, or the promises of Christ have 
failed. For the true Church must always profess the 
true, and, therefore, the same faith, and possess this same 
unity." 

The state of unity assumed, in reference to the pro- 
fessors of false religions, is not borne out by the facts 
of history. The Mohammedans have long been divided 
into at least two parties. Mohammed was not a very 
competent legislator, and left his system very imperfect 
in some respects. 

So that the truth of history, as I understand it, is 
substantially this : there has been a greater unity in the 
Catholic Church than in the Mohammedan, or any other, 
so far as we have the means of knowing; while at the 
same time those divisions have not been so great as the 
alleged divisions and errors in the Catholic Church. In 
other words, the alleged inconsistent changes in the faith 
of the Catholic Church have been greater than those 
actually introduced into any of the anti-Christian 
Churches of the world. 

We may take either view of the historical fact, and 
the argument from the continued unity of the Catholic 
Church, is, indeed, a very powerful one. If it be true. 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 417 



that one large portion of mankind united in the profes- 
sion of one reHgion, and another large portion in the 
profession of a different theory, for many ages together ; 
then it does show, that when a system is once established, 
which purports upon its face to be permanent in the 
same form, and to continue without addition or sub- 
traction, it cannot be changed by a wholesale addition 
of the most disgusting, oppressive, and inconsistent 
errors, without incurring the most strenuous resistance, 
and without leaving the most palpable historical evidences 
of the struggle behind. 

Macaulay, the brilliant English Protestant historian, 
has a well-known passage, in which he speaks of the 
wonderful sagacity of Rome, and concludes that she is 
the masterpiece of human wisdom. That she is a master- 
piece of wisdom, there can be no doubt; and the only 
question is whether it is human or divine. If human, 
it is the most wonderful of all human institutions. But 
whether human or divine, that wisdom is just what we 
should expect to find in the work of Christ. We should 
naturally expect the same unity, consistency, and dur- 
ability, in any true system. And where we do not find 
all these quaHties, we may safely conclude that the true 
Church is not there. 

The very admission of the attribute of reformability in 
a Church, makes reforms interminable. For how can 
truth be reformable? And how can the true Church be 
-reformable? It would seem clear that no Church that 
ever did change her faith, or that admits it to -be re- 
formable at all, can be the true Church of Christ, the 
pillar and ground of the truth. 

Upon the supposition that the Catholic Church is not 
the true Church, how can we account for the fact that 
she has withstood all the storms of time, while of the 



4i8 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 



numerous sects that arose before the Reformation, so 
few traces remain ? If she was false as well as they, why 
did she not share their fate? How did she happen to 
possess so much unity, so much wisdom, and so much 
tenacity of life, while they, numerous as they were, van- 
ished, one after another from the map of existence? 
Why could none of them possess the human wisdom 
mentioned by Macaulay? 

It is very true that the Old Church during the long 
course of her career, has had her enemies and trials, 
without and within. These enemies have been numerous 
and powerful, and the trials severe. History tells many 
a sad tale of her sufferings. It was so in the beginning. 
Judas betrayed his Master, Peter denied Him, and the 
rest forsook Him and fled, and He was crucified and 
buried. The religion of Jesus, the despised Nazarene, 
was, to all human appearances, exterminated. Even the 
apostles lost faith for the moment. The Jews thought 
they had made sure work of it. They sealed the sepulchre, 
and put a guard over it to prevent even the pretence 
of a resurrection. But Christ would, and did, rise again. 

And so it has ever been with His Old Church. Her 
entire destruction has often been threatened, but it has 
not yet been accomplished. The thing seems impossible. 
Her grave has often been dug, in imagination, and her 
enemies have so often supposed that she was dead and 
buried; but still she would rise again. At the very mo- 
ment when she was thought to be the weakest, she was, 
in fact, the strongest. Wonderful vitality ! Glorious in- 
vincibility! Her enemies could die. She could not. 

And since the alleged Reformation, her destruction 
has been often threatened, but only threatened. It is 
always in the power of her enemies to threaten. A few 
years after the dawn of that event, the Turks made 



MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 419 



renewed and mighty efforts to conquer Europe; and 
Luther, at the time, advised his followers to refrain 
from opposing the Turks, until the Papacy should be de- 
stroyed. Under these circumstances, every thing seemed 
suspended upon the fate of one battle. The great bat- 
tle of Lepanto was fought between the Mohammedans 
and Catholics, and the Turks were vanquished. When 
the followers of Luther, under the Landgrave of Hesse, 
rebelled against the government of Charles the 5, the 
battle of the Elbe declared in favor of the Emporer. 
Afterwards the great Gustavus, that thunderbolt of war, 
whose career threatened the entire destruction of the 
Catholic Church, was slain at the battle of Lutzen, and 
the Church again triumphed. Still later, and during the 
French Revolution, it was thought the days of the Church 
were numbered, and the notes of triumph were already 
sounded. But Napoleon appeared, and the Church rose 
again. And when this great man oppressed the Church, 
others put him down. And so it has ever been in the 
history of this Old, but invincible Church. Difficulty 
after difficulty — trial after trial — she has always met 
and overcome. 

And these stern and gloomy trials — but glorious 
triumphs — ■ only increase our faith in the stability of 
this mighty Old Church. Is there any virtue without 
temptation? Any fidelity without a trial? Any victory 
without a struggle? Must not the true Church fight, if 
she would reign? And if she fights, must she not bleed? 
And if she expects to gain great victories, let her trials 
be severe. So much the better. Let her " come up 
through great tribulation," but let her come up. She 
has always done it. 

These trials — these threatened exterminations — give 
Catholics no uneasiness. They have faith — unwavering 



420 



CONCLUSION 



faith — in the promises of Christ. If the Church be not 
protected by Christ, let her fail. And if she had not been 
so protected, she would have failed long ago. If the 
work of Christ, she must and will live on, though her 
trials and sufferings be still more severe. 

And I confess that I love a Church that has overcome 
all these trials. Her sufferings have been intense. So 
they should be. Shall the true Church have a primrose 
path on earth, and also a golden path in heaven? Will 
not her glory be in proportion to her sufferings and 
trials? And her victories in the past but assure me of 
her victories in the future. The good ship that has 
triumphantly rode out many a severe storm, and is yet 
staunch and tight, is the more to be trusted. The vet- 
eran soldier that has fought on many a battle-field, and 
wears honorable scars, and is yet strong and vigorous, 
is but the more reliable. And the Church expects trials, 
and would not escape them if she did not expect them. 
It is her vocation, her business, to meet and overcome 
them. Let her fulfil her duty — the very purpose of her 
creation. 

Conclusion. 

In his debate with Mr. Rice, Mr. Campbell says : 
" Catholic parents do their work more faithfully than 
most of the Protestants, and the consequence is, it Is 
generally more difficult to convert a Romanist to any 
Protestant profession, than a Protestant to the Roman 
persuasion." (Debate 317.) 

If it be true, as stated, that " Catholic parents do their 
work more faithfully, than most of the Protestants," it 
does show their greater sincerity, faith, and devotion. 
And these are most commendable traits in the Christian 
character. The exertions of a parent to instruct his 



CONCLUSION 



421 



children in the reHgion he himself believes, will bear a 
just proportion to the fixedness and importance of his 
own faith. 

But the greater difficulty of converting a Catholic than 
a Protestant, does not arise solely, nor mainly, from the 
cause assigned by Mr. Campbell, but from others. The 
great Dr. Johnson said: 

" A man who is converted from Protestantism to 
Popery may be sincere ; he parts with nothing ; he is only 
superadding to what he already had. But a convert 
from Popery to Protestantism gives up so much of what 
he has held as sacred as any thing that he retains ; there 
is so much laceration of mind in such a conversion, that 
it can hardly be sincere and lasting." (Boswell, A. D. 
1769.) And the biographer himself adds: "The truth 
of this reflection may be confirmed by many and eminent 
instances, some of which will occur to most of my 
readers." 

There certainly is a great deal of truth, though not 
the whole truth, in this reflection. The convert from the 
CathoHc Church seems conscious that he is embracing 
an inferior and lower grade of faith, and adopting a 
colder and more suspicious estimate of human veracity. 
He cuts himself loose from the holy ties that bound him 
to the suffering martyr-Church of old. He severs all 
connection with the apostles, except that hidden one, 
which is supposed to be buried in the darkness and silence 
of the dim distant ages of the past. He leaves the sweet 
communion of saints, which combines the children of 
the true faith everywhere, in every age, in one holy 
brotherhood. What are the heroic martyrs and saints 
of old to him? They are now become mystics and 
visionaries." What to him is now the great and universal 
Church of the mighty past? The Man of Sin." Who 



422 



CONCLUSION 



were the clergy of the Old Church — that Church which 
won the world to Christianity? To him they are now 
become impostors, who betrayed the faith of Christ. And 
the laity, who were they? Simple dupes. In short, to 
him what is the Christian past? A blurred and blotted 
page for evil, and a practical blank for good. It is a 
melancholy view of Christianity — a humiliating esti- 
mate of human veracity — a mighty accusation against 
humanity itself. No wonder it produces so much 
^'laceration of mind." 

But it is not so with the convert to the Catholic Faith. 
He is conscious that he has embraced a higher grade of 
faith, has been brought into closer and holier com- 
munion with the unseen world, and has adopted a more 
just and charitable estimate of human veracity. He has 
taken a step towards the Celestial City, from the low 
murky valleys of discord, where the fogs of error do 
love to dwell. He shakes hands with the brethren of 
every kindred, name, and tongue. He worships with 
the people of every nation. He joins his prayers with 
those who speak the varied languages of earth. On 
every shore, in every land, beneath every sky, and in 
every city, he meets his brethren of the universal Church. 
He is . at home everywhere, and bows down with the 
millions who have worshipped, and still worship, at the 
same altar, and hold the same faith. 

But not only so. He looks back over the pages of 
past history, and ascends by a plain, visible, and un- 
broken chain to the apostolic day. He has no chasms to 
leap, no deserts to cross. At every step in this progress 
he finds the same Old Church — the same faith — the 
same worship still pre-eminent in the Christian world. 
He sees the rise and fall of empires and sects; but the 
same Old Church always pre-eminent. The records of 



CONCLUSION 



423 



the past are with him. He has the sanction of antiquity. 
Time tells for him a glorious story. He meets with 
myriads of brethren all along the slumbering ages. The 
old martyrs and saints are his brethren. He claims com- 
panionship with them. Their memories are beloved by 
him. And Blandina, the poor slave, but noblest of 
martyrs, was his sister. And old Ignatius, and Polycarp, 
and Justin, and Irenseus, are also his brethren. And 
she, the humblest of the humble — the purest of the pure 
— the stainless Virgin IMother of his Lord, whom all gen- 
erations call " blessed," is revered by him as the noblest 
of creatures. And the old apostles — the noble and the 
true — the holy and the just — the despised and perse- 
cuted — they, too, are his brethren. In short, the saints 
and martyrs of the olden time, held the same faith, wor- 
shipped at the same altar, and used the same form of 
worship that he does. He venerates and loves their 
memory, admires their virtues, calls them brethren, and 
asks their prayers in heaven. He has no accusations to 
bring against them — no crimes to lay to their charge. 

Besides all this, his faith is sustained by a logical 
power, and a Scriptural proof, that cannot be fairly met 
and confuted. It is sustained by every plain and luminous 
principle upon which society and government are founded. 
His reason, his common sense, the best feelings of his 
nature, the holiest impulses of his heart, all satisfy him 
beyond a doubt, that he is in the right. 

It is not at all surprising, then, that it is so difficult to 
convert a Catholic to Protestantism, even when in the 
vigor of life ; and so difficult, that it never has been done, 
at the hour of death. For there is no known instance 
where a Catholic changed his faith upon a dying bed ; 
while thousands of Protestants have done so. If a 
Catholic can live a faithful member of his Church, he 



424 



CONCLUSION 



can always die in it. In that awful hour — that honest 
hour — 

"When all the blandishments of life are gone." 
" When tired dissimulation drops her mask, 
And real and apparent are the same;" 

when eternity, with all its mighty consequences, rolls up 
its endless proportions before the dying vision — Ah! 
then, no Catholic asks to change his faith ! Oh ! give me 
the last sacraments of the Church! Let me die in her 
holy communion! Let me be buried in consecrated 
ground ! Let my brethren pray for me ! 

But there is still another most weighty consideration 
with him. He examines carefully the doctrines of his 
Church. From the first to the last article of faith, they 
are as consistent with each other as truth itself could 
be. There is no discrepancy — no contradiction. The 
whole theory, in all its parts, is perfectly consistent with 
itself. He finds few, if any, to deny this entire con- 
sistency of parts with the whole. He knows that every 
part of a true system must be consistent with each, and 
with all. No one truth jars with another. There can 
be no enmity, no discord, in a true system. But he knows 
it is exceedingly difiicult to find this consistency and har- 
mony in a theory of pure error; and still more difficult 
to find it in a mixed theory of truth and error. And he 
cannot understand how the alleged additions to the faith 
could have been made, and so nicely fitted to the true 
system, as to be perfectly consistent with it. He finds it 
conceded that his Church has the fundamental truths of 
Christianity, and that her faith is consistent throughout ; 
and he cannot see how this consistency could be found 
between the alleged added errors and the old truths ; and 
he is forced to conclude, that a theory so consistent in 



CONCLUSION 



425 



all its parts and admitted to contain many truths, must 
be true in every particular. 

I will close this work in the words of that distin- 
guished French writer, La Bruyere : 

" If my religion be false, it is, I must own, the most 
artful snare that could possibly be devised. It is im- 
possible to avoid falling into it and being caught. What 
majesty, what magnificence, in its mysteries ! What 
coherency, what connection, in all its doctrines ! What 
sound reasons ! What candor ! What innocence of mor- 
als ! What an invincible and overwhelming body of evi- 
dence is given successively, and for three whole centuries, 
by millions of the most learned and most considerate 
persons then in the world, and whom the conviction of 
one and the same truth supported in exile, in fetters, at 
the approach of death, and under the most cruel tor- 
ments." 



THE END 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 



4. 



' * * ' ' o^^ . ^ ' * . ^"^o '° ' ' c « ^ . '^'^ * * PreservationTechnologies 

*^^^f^y^ ^ *^ WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO^ 



4 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724) 779-21 



